Friday, May 31, 2024

Field hospital or detention center? Inside Israel's only hospital to treat Palestinians in Gaza

While Israel says it detains only suspected militants, many patients have turned out to be non-combatants taken during raids, held without trial and eventually returned to war-torn Gaza

AP Gaza
 Published 01.06.24

A Palestinian man wounded in an Israeli strike is helped as he walks outside a field hospital where he receives treatment, in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip, May 30, 2024.
REUTERS/Hatem Khaled

Patients lying shackled and blindfolded on more than a dozen beds inside a white tent in the desert. Surgeries performed without adequate painkillers. Doctors who remain anonymous.


These are some of the conditions at Israel's only hospital dedicated to treating Palestinians detained by the military in the Gaza Strip, three people who have worked there told The Associated Press, confirming similar accounts from human rights groups.

While Israel says it detains only suspected militants, many patients have turned out to be non-combatants taken during raids, held without trial and eventually returned to war-torn Gaza.


Eight months into the Israel-Hamas war, accusations of inhumane treatment at the Sde Teiman military field hospital are on the rise, and the Israeli government is under growing pressure to shut it down. Rights groups and other critics say what began as a temporary place to hold and treat militants after Oct. 7 has morphed into a harsh detention center with too little accountability.

The military denies the allegations of inhumane treatment and says all detainees needing medical attention receive it.


The hospital is near the city of Beersheba in southern Israel. It opened beside a detention center on a military base after the Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel because some civilian hospitals refused to treat wounded militants. Of the three workers interviewed by AP, two spoke on condition of anonymity because they feared government retribution and public rebuke.


“We are condemned by the left because we are not fulfilling ethical issues,” said Dr. Yoel Donchin, an anesthesiologist who has worked at Sde Teiman hospital since its earliest days and still works there. “We are condemned from the right because they think we are criminals for treating terrorists.”


The military this week said it formed a committee to investigate detention center conditions, but it was unclear if that included the hospital. Next week Israel's highest court is set to hear arguments from human rights groups seeking to shut it down.


Israel has not granted journalists or the International Committee of the Red Cross access to the Sde Teiman facilities.


Israel has detained some 4,000 Palestinians since Oct. 7, according to official figures, though roughly 1,500 were released after the military determined they were not affiliated with Hamas. Israeli human rights groups say the majority of detainees have at some point passed through Sde Teiman, the country's largest detention center.


Doctors there say they have treated many who appeared to be non-combatants.


“Now we have patients that are not so young, sick patients with diabetes and high blood pressure,” said Donchin, the anesthesiologist.


A soldier who worked at the hospital recounted an elderly man who underwent surgery on his leg without pain medication. “He was screaming and shaking,” said the soldier.


Between medical treatments, the soldier said patients were housed in the detention center, where they were exposed to squalid conditions and their wounds often developed infections. There was a separate area where older people slept on thin mattresses under floodlights, and a putrid smell hung in the air, he said.


The military said in a statement that all detainees are “reasonably suspected of being involved in terrorist activity.” It said they receive check-ups upon arrival and are transferred to the hospital when they require more serious treatment.


A medical worker who saw patients at the facility in the winter recounted teaching hospital workers how to wash wounds.


Donchin, who largely defended the facility against allegations of mistreatment but was critical of some of its practices, said most patients are diapered and not allowed to use the bathroom, shackled around their arms and legs and blindfolded.


“Their eyes are covered all the time. I don't know what the security reason for this is,” he said.


The military disputed the accounts provided to AP, saying patients were handcuffed “in cases where the security risk requires it” and removed when they caused injury. Patients are rarely diapered, it said.


Dr. Michael Barilan, a professor at the Tel Aviv University Medical School who said he has spoken with over 15 hospital staff, disputed accounts of medical negligence. He said doctors are doing their best under difficult circumstances, and that the blindfolds originated out of a “fear (patients) would retaliate against those taking care of them."


Days after Oct. 7, roughly 100 Israelis clashed with police outside one of the country's main hospitals in response to false rumors it was treating a militant.


In the aftermath, some hospitals refused to treat detainees, fearful that doing so could endanger staff and disrupt operations. They were already overwhelmed by people wounded during the Hamas attack and expecting casualties to rise from an impending ground invasion.


As Israel pulled in scores of wounded Palestinians to Sde Teiman, it became clear the facility's infirmary was not large enough, according to Barilan. An adjacent field hospital was built from scratch.


Israel's Health Ministry laid out plans for the hospital in a December memo obtained by AP.


It said patients would be treated while handcuffed and blindfolded. Doctors, drafted into service by the military, would be kept anonymous to protect their "safety, lives and well-being." The ministry referred all questions to the military when reached for comment.


Still, an April report from Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, drawing on interviews with hospital workers, said doctors at the facility faced “ethical, professional and even emotional distress.” Barilan said turnover has been high.


Patients with more complicated injuries have been transferred from the field hospital to civilian hospitals, but it has been done covertly to avoid arousing the public's attention, Barilan said. And the process is fraught: The medical worker who spoke with AP said one detainee with a gunshot wound was discharged prematurely from a civilian hospital to Sde Teiman within hours of being treated, endangering his life.


The field hospital is overseen by military and health officials, but Donchin said parts of its operations are managed by KLP, a private logistics and security company whose website says it specializes in “high-risk environments.” The company did not respond to a request for comment.


Because it's not under the same command as the military's medical corps, the field hospital is not subject to Israel's Patients Rights Act, according to Physicians for Human Rights-Israel.


A group from the Israeli Medical Association visited the hospital earlier this year but kept its findings private. The association did not respond to requests for comment.


The military told AP that 36 people from Gaza have died in Israel's detention centers since Oct. 7, some of them because of illnesses or wounds sustained in the war. Physicians for Human Rights-Israel has alleged that some died from medical negligence.


Khaled Hammouda, a surgeon from Gaza, spent 22 days at one of Israel's detention centers. He does not know where he was taken because he was blindfolded while he was transported. But he said he recognized a picture of Sde Teiman and said he saw at least one detainee, a prominent Gaza doctor who is believed to have been there.


Hammouda recalled asking a soldier if a pale 18-year-old who appeared to be suffering from internal bleeding could be taken to a doctor. The soldier took the teenager away, gave him intravenous fluids for a few hours, and then returned him.


“I told them, He could die,'" Hammouda said. “They told me this is the limit.'”
GAZA SOLIDARITY

Teenager chains himself to goalpost during Scotland-Israel match to protest Israeli bombardment of Gaza

Women's Euro 2025 qualifier at Glasgow's Hampden Stadium resumed after 45 minutes, reports media

Merve Berker |01.06.2024 - 



Before the Women's Euro 2025 qualifier between Scotland and Israel at Glasgow's Hampden stadium, a demonstrator chained himself to the goalposts to protest Israel's military operation in Gaza, according to local media.

The atmosphere surrounding the Scotland-Israel match, which was held behind closed doors due to security concerns, was disrupted when a 19-year-old man chained himself to the goalposts and protested Israel's continued military attacks in Gaza, STV News reported on Friday.

When play resumed, the Israeli team's gesture of holding up T-shirts advocating for the release of hostages held by Hamas added another layer of complexity to the match.

Meanwhile, hundreds of people gathered outside the stadium, carrying Palestinian flags and symbolic coffins, reflecting a larger public outcry against the ongoing strife.

Despite the upheaval, the game eventually proceeded 45 minutes later, but not without echoes of dissent ringing through the air from both demonstrators and counter-protesters.

“I think it is cowardly that they have kept us out of our own national stadium,” the broadcaster quoted demonstrators as saying.

“They have silenced us, as fans and as protesters,” they decried.

The STV News quoted protestors calling on: “We should be in there making a noise in front of the television, instead they are keeping us outside and silent.”

“The decision to play the game in an empty stadium was reached following updated intelligence and ‘extensive security consultations’ with key parties involved,” the broadcaster said, citing a statement issued by the Scottish Football Association (SFA).

“Due to updated intelligence and following extensive security consultations with all key parties, the Scottish FA regrets to confirm that the forthcoming qualifier between Scotland and Israel at Hampden Park on May 31 will now be played behind closed doors,” the SFA stressed.

“The stadium operations team were alerted to the potential for planned disruptions to the match and as a consequence we have no option but to play the match without supporters in attendance.

“We apologize for any inconvenience caused by the decision but the safety of supporters, players, team staff and officials is of paramount importance,” it added.

Israel has continued its brutal offensive on Gaza since an attack by Hamas on Oct. 7, despite a UN Security Council resolution demanding an immediate cease-fire.

More than 36,200 Palestinians have since been killed in Gaza, the vast majority being women and children, and nearly 81,800 others injured, according to local health authorities.

Nearly eight months into the Israeli war, vast swathes of Gaza lay in ruins amid a crippling blockade of food, clean water, and medicine.

Israel stands accused of genocide at the International Court of Justice, which in its latest ruling ordered it to immediately halt its operation in Rafah, where over a million Palestinians had sought refuge from the war before it was invaded on May 6.


 

Pro-Palestinian protesters enter Brooklyn Museum, unfurl banner as police make arrests

Pro-Palestine-protest-Brooklyn-main1-750

Police detain a pro-Palestinian demonstrator in front of the Brooklyn Museum during on Friday. AP

Hundreds of pro-Palestinian protesters marched to the Brooklyn Museum on Friday afternoon, set up tents in the lobby and unfurled a "Free Palestine” banner from the building's roof before police moved in to make arrests.

New York City police officers tackled and punched some protesters during scuffles that broke out in the crowd outside the museum while some demonstrators hurled plastic bottles at officers and shouted insults. Other protesters held banners, waved Palestinian flags and chanted boisterously on the steps of the grand, Beaux Arts museum, which is the city’s second largest.

The rally started Friday afternoon across the street from the Barclays Center, home of the NBA's Brooklyn Nets. Marchers banging drums and chanting then made their way to the museum about a mile away.

Organizers, including the group Within Our Lifetime, called on supporters to "flood” and "de-occupy” the museum, saying they wanted to take over the building until officials " disclose and divest ” from any investments linked to Israel's actions in Gaza.

Videos posted on social media showed guards at the museum trying to secure its doors against the surging crowd, and demonstrators finding other ways inside.

Pro-Palestine-protest-Brooklyn-main2-750
A Pro-Palestinian protestor is detained by New York Police Officers in front of the Brooklyn Museum. Reuters

Spokespersons for the museum didn’t respond to emails and phone messages seeking comment late Friday, but an NYPD spokesperson confirmed protesters had been taken into custody. The department didn't immediately have an estimate for how many have been arrested or what charges they might face.

New York City has seen hundreds of street demonstrations since the conflict between Israel and Hamas began in October.

The Brooklyn Museum sits at the edge of Crown Heights, which is home to one of the city's largest communities of Orthodox Jews.

Associated Press

Taylor Swift is showing just how bad Edinburgh's housing emergency really is

Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour is seeing people who are homeless in Edinburgh pitted against tourists for hotel space in Edinburgh. It’s become the norm and the Scottish government must act, Shelter Scotland’s Alison Watson writes

ALISON WATSON
31 May 2024

Cruel Summer, Taylor Swift. Image: Casey Flanigan/imageSPACE/Shutterstock

A family or individual in Edinburgh who is going through the trauma of homelessness should not be asked to move miles away from their jobs, their schools, or their communities to access emergency accommodation. But that is the sad reality of what’s happening in Scotland’s capital.

Taylor Swift’s Murrayfield concert brought this issue into the headlines, but this concert isn’t the first time we’ve seen the situation emerge. During the Edinburgh Festival, the Six Nations, and over the festive period the same thing happens again and again. Without urgent intervention from the Scottish government, it will keep happening.

The housing system is now so broken that people experiencing homelessness are pitted in direct competition with tourists; that injustice is as obvious as it is shameful. It simply shouldn’t be the case that a city like Edinburgh, a global destination for tourism, can’t host a major event without it having a significant knock-on effect for people experiencing homelessness.

Big Issue is demanding an end to poverty this general election. Will you sign our open letter to party leaders?

To give the City of Edinburgh Council it’s due, they know this is a problem. The city simply doesn’t have the resources required to meet the unprecedented demand placed on its homelessness services. Record numbers are stuck in temporary accommodation, including 3,000 children. The city is chronically over reliant on using tourist accommodation to fulfil its legal obligations to citizens who become homeless.

Edinburgh is among the most acutely affected parts of the country but the situation here isn’t unique; we see a similar picture across Scotland. Local authorities are failing to meet their statutory obligations to homeless people, breaking the law in other words, at an industrial scale. Nearly half the population of Scotland lives in an area which the Scottish Housing Regulator has said doesn’t have a fully functioning homelessness service. They’re over stretched, overwhelmed, and homeless people are paying the price. In that context it’s no surprise that seven separate councils, including Edinburgh, have declared housing emergencies.

The Scottish government has now also declared a housing emergency and promised to bring forward a plan to end it. Ministers need to make good on that promise and the clock is ticking because an emergency situation demands an emergency response.

What’s very clear is that more of the same won’t cut it and words must be backed up with cash. Right now, too many local homeless services simply can’t keep up with demand and so are failing to deliver for those in need of support. We know that councils want to change the situation. Edinburgh Council, for example, published an action plan after declaring a housing emergency but it can’t move forward in a meaningful way without funding.

So, in the first instance the Scottish government needs to step in and give local authorities the resources they need to ensure homeless services can operate effectively.

More homes are also essential. A serious and longstanding shortage of social homes has driven Edinburgh, and Scotland, to this point. Benefits and wages haven’t kept pace with runaway housing costs, so more and more people have found it impossible to keep a roof over their head. But decades of underinvestment in social housing means that when they present to the council as homeless, there simply aren’t the homes for them to go to. So, more and more people get trapped in temporary accommodation for longer periods of time, placing ever greater strain on the local services. Delivering more social homes is the only way to break that cycle.

In the last Budget the Scottish government slashed the funding for social housing prompting widespread, justified, anger and dismay across the country. Now that ministers have declared a housing emergency its vital the delivery of social housing is accelerated and properly funded.

People in Edinburgh, and across Scotland, have been dealing with the brutal reality of the housing emergency for years now. This is the latest example of just how cruel that housing emergency can be for those living at its sharpest edges. Our politicians have acknowledged that reality; they now have a responsibility to back their words up with urgent, meaningful, action. People simply can’t wait any longer.

Alison Watson is the director of Shelter Scotland.
Election 2024: Scotland headed for huge change with SNP set to lose dozens of seats to Labour


Labour leader Keir Starmer with his Scottish Labour counterpart, Anas Sarwar. Alamy/Stefan Rousseau

Published: May 31, 2024 
The Conversation UK.

Scotland, it was claimed by first minister and SNP leader John Swinney, is again being “disrespected” by the Conservatives. This was his response to the news that the UK election would be held on July 4 – after many Scottish schools have already broken up for the summer, and just as a lot of families will be taking off on holiday. To Swinney (and others), this was just another example of Scotland being an afterthought for Westminster.

It may indeed be the case that Scotland was not a major factor in Rishi Sunak’s decision to call a July election. After all, Scotland only returned six Conservative MPs in 2019 (down from 13 in 2017) out of a total of 59. Voters overwhelmingly chose the SNP, which took 45% of the vote and 48 seats, thereby making it the third-largest party in Westminster (again).

This has been a pattern since the Scottish independence referendum of 2014, which triggered a political realignment. Ever since, the Scottish electorate appears to have voted according to constitutional preference, rather than making a wider, issues-based consideration. Those who voted for independence supported the SNP in Westminster elections, while those who opposed it mostly backed Labour or the Conservatives.

But recent polls suggest this pattern is about to be broken. Scotland, it appears, is headed for huge change.

We can help you make informed decisions with our independent journalism.Get newsletter

All indications are that the next parliament will include many more Scottish Labour MPs and many fewer SNP MPs. Indeed, the latest polls indicate the SNP could lose up to 30 seats, with the vast majority going to Scottish Labour, while the Scottish Liberal Democrats and Scottish Conservatives could pick up one or two additional seats, respectively. Boundary changes mean Scotland will now have 57 rather than 59 MPs, but that will be little consolation for the SNP.

Since its 2019 victory, support for the SNP has declined steadily. The political woes of former first minister Nicola Sturgeon and her husband Peter Murrell, followed by her resignation in February 2023, was a rough patch for the party.

Her successor, Humza Yousaf, after a period of initial calm beset by only minor gaffes, had to resign suddenly after pulling out of the SNP’s governing agreement with the Greens. His replacement as first minister and leader, Swinney, has hardly had time to bed in. He may well have preferred that the election was held later in 2024, enabling him to deal with some of the SNP’s woes in the meantime.

However, we should not automatically assume that the drop in support for the SNP means voters in Scotland no longer care about independence. Support for independence remains at about the same level it was in 2014. What appears to have changed is that people appear to now want to vote with other issues in mind.

While a core of support remains for the SNP on the independence issue, the two most important issues for respondents to a recent poll were the cost of living and the NHS. When asked to highlight the most important three influences on their potential vote, two-thirds focused on the cost of living as an issue, and half on the NHS.

In this regard, Scotland seems to be much like the wider UK. Both of these issues rated far ahead of other matters such as independence, climate change, immigration, education or jobs and unemployment – all of which scored in the teens in terms of how likely they were to influence people’s voting choice.
First minister and SNP leader John Swinney had only been in post a few weeks when the election was called. Alamy/SST

As it stands, more people trust Scottish Labour on these core issues than they do the SNP or the Scottish Conservatives. Only on the issue of independence, unsurprisingly, is the SNP stronger than its main competitor. But up to 20% of those who voted SNP in 2019 have indicated they may well support Scottish Labour in July.

Want more election coverage from The Conversation’s academic experts? Over the coming weeks, we’ll bring you informed analysis of developments in the campaign and we’ll fact check the claims being made. Sign up for our new, weekly election newsletter, delivered every Friday throughout the campaign and beyond.

A significant percentage of voters are seemingly happy to shift support when it comes to who they feel will best stand up for Scotland in Westminster. Over the past decade, the SNP has been the recipient of such support, but party in-fighting, legal woes and the rapid turnover of three leaders have clearly had an impact.

Faced with a Conservative UK government, voters in Scotland strongly supported the SNP, seeing the nationalist party as the best choice for a voice for Scotland in the UK parliament. That, it seems, is now a changing perception, and support is clearly moving.

With Labour the strong favourites to form the next UK government, a number of voters in Scotland, more concerned with the issues of day-to-day living rather than constitutional matters, are backing Scottish Labour. This time, these voters may consider that having more Scottish voices within the UK government, rather than in opposition in Westminster, could be a potential positive for Scotland.


Author
Murray Leith
Professor of Political Science, University of the West of Scotland
Disclosure statement
Murray Leith has previously received funding from the European Union and the Scottish Government. He is a member of the Electoral Reform Society.
Partners
Australian researchers find simple, cost-effective desalination method

May 31, 2024 
By Phil Mercer
A man carries plastic jugs of water during a drought in Spain, Jan 31, 2024. Australian researchers say they have found a new way to remove salt from seawater using heat, which could help combat global water shortages.

SYDNEY —

Australian researchers say a simpler and cheaper method to remove salt from seawater using heat could help combat what they call “unprecedented global water shortages." The desalination of seawater is a process where salt and impurities are removed to produce drinking water.

Most of the world’s desalination methods use a process called reverse osmosis. It uses pressure to force seawater through a membrane. The salt is retained on one side, and purified water is passed through on the other.

Researchers at the Australian National University (ANU) say that while widespread, the current processes need large amounts of electricity and other expensive materials that need to be serviced and maintained.

Scientists at ANU say they developed the world’s first thermal desalination method. It is powered not by electricity, but by moderate heat generated directly from sunlight, or waste heat from machines such as air conditioners or other industrial processes.

It uses a phenomenon called thermo diffusion, in which salt moves from hot temperatures to cold. The researchers pumped seawater through a narrow channel, which runs under a unit that was heated to greater than 60 degrees Celsius and over a bottom plate that was cooled to 20 degrees Celsius. Lower-salinity water comes from the water in the top section of the channel, closer to the heat.

After repeated cycles through the channels, the ANU study asserts, the salinity of seawater can be reduced from 30,000 parts per million to less than 500 parts per million.

Juan Felipe Torres, a mechanical and aerospace engineer at the Australian National University and the project’s lead chief investigator, explained his pioneering work.

“We use a phenomenon people have not used before,” he said. “We are exploring its applicability in this context but in essence (it) should be something super simple, something as simple as a channel where you have water flowing through it and you are going to produce some sort of separation, and this is what thermal desalination is doing.”

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization has stated that by 2025, 1.8 billion people around the world are likely to face “absolute water scarcity.”

Torres said the ANU’s invention could help ensure water supplies to communities under threat because of climate change.

“Our vision, let’s say, for the future to have a more equitable world in terms of water security and food security is a method that does not require expensive maintenance or to train personnel to continue running it. So, we think thermal desalination would enable that,” he said.

The ANU team is building a multi-channel solar-powered device to desalinate seawater in the Pacific kingdom of Tonga, which is enduring a severe drought.

The research is published in the journal Nature Communications.

Tower of Power



 
 MAY 31, 2024

Facebook

 Johann Sebastian Bach’s last pupil, Johann Gottfried Müthel (1728–88) spent the final two decades of his life as a church organist in the Baltic city of Riga, far to the northeast of the three central German cities (Erfurt, Gotha, and Leipzig in the Lutheran—and Bach family—heartland) and two Bavarian ones (bi-confessional Augsburg and Catholic Munich) brought to sounding life in Tanya Kevorkian’s vigorously researched, resonantly detailed, and often tuneful book, Music and Urban Life in Baroque Germany. The organ that Müthel presided over in Riga’s Petruskirche rose some three stories up the west wall and was an orchestra unto itself. Kevorkian’s previous book, Baroque Piety: Religion, Society, and Music in Leipzig, 1650–1750 (Routledge, 2016) was animated by the sometimes unruly churchgoing practices and behaviors of Bach’s time; in the present book, she confirms that, whatever the artistic imperatives of the organist, his main purpose was to bring order to full-throated and often chaotic congregational singing. To fulfill this task, his instrument had to be loud. But, as Kevorkian also shows, it was not just the organ that organized people: a multi-layered “mix”—as modern sound designers might say—shaped temporal, social, and political structures, sonically enmeshing people from different classes, neighborhoods, professions, and religious persuasions.

Müthel was also a renowned player of the clavichord, hailed by its devotees as the most expressive keyboard. It was also the quietest. Intent on having his ruminative fantasies undisturbed by the clattering of carts over cobblestones and kindred urban annoyances, Müthel refused to play his clavichord for friends except when snow blanketed the city. The blaring of trumpets and tolling of bells would also likely have perturbed Riga’s resident keyboard genius when sharing his intimate musical secrets. Other musicians and townsfolk less eccentric, or perhaps just less egotistical than Müthel also knew how boisterous the baroque city could be. Those moderns who yearn for the imagined calm of urban life in the Age of Bach, will be sonorously disabused of this notion by Kevorkian’s often entertaining and always thought-provoking study.

Even the snowstorms wished for by Müthel couldn’t mute the trumpet-playing tower guards (Türmer). From the balconies of church towers, these municipal musicians provided unobstructed aerial accompaniment for processions, announced the approach of a monarch’s carriage, cheered the arrival of holidays, and provided the essential quotidian service of, in Kevorkian’s apt phrase, “marking collective time” The Erfurt tower guards also blew a simpler horn than a trumpet every quarter of an hour, and these smaller brass instruments were used in the other cities too. A Munich tower guard instruction from 1650 described this operative’s main duty as “herald[ing] the day with trumpeting.” In Leipzig, and elsewhere, that day apparently started with a Lutheran chorale at either 2 or 3 a.m., though for some the tune merely bifurcated the night. Either way, the music provided a kind of city-wide alarm clock jingle heard by all residents. Sunset and the mid-morning height of the business day in mercantile Leipzig were also heralded. These hymns heard from on high not only divided the day into its constituent parts but reminded all that they lived in a theocracy, even as encroaching modernity and the joys of consumption—including music—inexorably eroded church control.

Kevorkian is keenly attentive to the demands of musical work and is adept at placing us in these musicians’ buckled shoes. The snow yearned for by some clavichordists would require the Türmer to blow from church towers high above the city in bitingly cold weather, making it painfully difficult for the him to “shape his lips.” Whatever the climatic conditions, tower guards may have played “relatively simple tunes,” but, writes Kevorkian, “the stakes were high” (63). All in town could—indeed, should—hear these chorales that were known by heart by almost everyone.

In Leipzig, some of the closest ears belonged to the city music director, Johann Sebastian Bach, and his wife, the talented professional singer, Anna Magdalena. Their apartment was next to the tower of St. Thomas Church. Anna Magdalena’s father and her three brothers were all trumpeters. Her husband also counted tower guards on his side of the family tree. In one of many memorable scenes, Kevorkian’s first page conjures Anna Magdalena listening discerningly to the nearby trumpeter delivering his evening chorale. Augsburg employed one Catholic and one Lutheran tower guard, each playing for the weddings and other occasions of those of their own confession. Only when two trumpets were called for did they join in a harmonious duet.

The lives of these many, indefatigable laborers are evoked not just with archival rigor but with human feeling. The Augsburg trumpeters petitioned the city council to allow them to have their wives join them in their tower rooms, thus allowing the men to fulfill, as the 1549 document cited by Kevorkian puts it, their “marital duty.” The council granted the request, but just once a month. By 1749 their successors were permitted to descend from their posts and go home between 7 and 9 p.m. each day. Slow was the progress of musical labor rights.

Down on the streets, watchmen called out the half-hour through the night by singing out the time, blowing a horn, or sounding a noisemaker. Complaints were inevitable, and protocols enjoined these mobile timekeepers and proto-policemen to make their voices as pleasing as possible. During the day, shoppers jangled coins and haggled with vendors, hawkers shouted and sang; the cacophony reached a crescendo during trade fairs. Some of these tunes, like those of a certain scissor sharpener, made their way into picturesque compositions like one by Sebastian Knüpfer, a predecessor of Bach as director of music in Leipzig.

As these cities got richer after the devastations of the Thirty Years’ War, more and more forms of leisure spread into the night; with the increase of musical entertainments in coffee houses and taverns, the sounds of people and song not only filled these interiors but spilled out onto the street. In other civic and domestic spaces, we encounter celebrations intimate and outsized: weddings (a major source of income for municipal musicians) and the ensuing afternoon feasts; town council investitures; grand commemorations lofted to the autocrats of the age. The middle of the eighteenth century also saw the rise of what would become the public concert, most prominently in Leipzig, and Kevorkian suggests that, as musical sound was increasingly transformed into an art to be revered, its “proper” place became the concert hall. Music faded from squares and towers.

Even during the heyday—and night—of baroque civic music, concerted works in church and elsewhere, including organ music and the more elaborate ensemble pieces presented by city musicians from the balcony of townhalls, were forbidden during the official periods of mourning that followed the death of monarchs. Bells, too, could project public joy or dolor. Silence enforced awed reverence for the departed but also cleared sonic space so that celebratory music for the new ruler could resound all the more triumphantly when it came at last. Yet, if music could be both an expression of, and salve for, sadness, then denying ears and souls this balm strikes one now—and perhaps more than a few then—as cruel.

Music performed from the church tower was usually relatively simple stuff. Far more involved were some of those works heard down below, especially come Sunday morning. As Kevorkian demonstrates, J. S. Bach cannily deployed Leipzig’s Town Musicians (Stadtpfeifer) not just for musical reasons but also in support of his political and personal maneuverings. She draws our attention to a series of concerted vocal works (“concerted” meaning a choir and/or soloists heard along with independent instrumental parts) from 1730, a fraught period for the director of music. Bach was then at odds with some members of the city council, and his job hung in the balance. Purposefully deploying the full might of the civic musicians in complex music from his pen gave sounding force to his artistic skill and professional prerogatives. After performing a demanding brass part in Bach’s cantata, Preise dein Glücke, gesegnetes Sachsen (BWV 215), the Leipzig trumpeter Gottfried Reiche succumbed to the smoke from festive torches lighting the nocturnal celebration put on in the town square for the new Saxon elector, Frederick Augustus III on 6 October 1734. Sound could not only uplift and energize but also, as now, harm.

Kevorkian tells us that the decline of urban music began with the ravages of the Seven Years’ War in the middle of the eighteenth century and continued apace under the forced economies of the Napoleonic Era. Industrialization and mechanization finished off the tower guards. An attempt to collect the last of their tunes was made in the early twentieth century, but the project was abandoned with the outbreak of World War I. Kevorkian notes that in a few German towns of the present reenactors serve up a tiny, tepid taste of the baroque urban symphony—just not at 3 a.m.

DAVID YEARSLEY is a long-time contributor to CounterPunch and the Anderson Valley Advertiser. His latest book is Sex, Death, and Minuets: Anna Magdalena Bach and Her Musical NotebooksHe can be reached at  dgyearsley@gmail.com

Canada's Bill C-63: Good Politics, (Mostly) Empty Policy

A duty to act responsibly will only work when the product itself isn’t causing harm.


Blayne Haggart
June 5, 2024
Canada's Bill C-63 takes a light touch to regulating online platforms to reduce harms, the author argues. (Illustration/REUTERS)


Over the past three years, Canada’s attempts to regulate large online companies have been something of a bloodsport. In May 2021, a cross-section of Canadian internet activists and scholars accused the federal government of flirting with authoritarianism. The response by many critics to specific legislation — Bill C-11, the Online Streaming Act, and Bill C-18, the Online News Act — was no less heated: cries of “Liberal censorship” and that the government had empowered itself “to control what Canadians can see and say online,” thereby enabling its bureaucrats to act like Nazis and Soviet apparatchiks and ushering in an era of “digital totalitarianism.” All this, about laws that do little more than bring online companies into a decades-old Canadian cultural policy regime and require large online platforms to negotiate payments to the news media companies.

Given this recent history, the Liberal government is surely ecstatic about the relatively muted response to
Bill C-63, its long-awaited, much-delayed legislation to regulate harms caused by social media companies. Since the Online Harms Act was introduced in February, most criticism has focused not on its ostensible subject but on several unrelated, unexpected amendments that would, among other things, expand the number of offences that can be brought under the rubric of hate crime. Intentional or otherwise, these amendments have acted like a legislative lightning rod for the rest of the bill.

But there’s another reason why the actual social media regulation part of Bill C-63 hasn’t gotten critics’ blood boiling. Outside of a couple of important but narrow issues, the Online Harms Act really doesn’t do that much. There hasn’t been much opposition because there’s not much here to oppose. Take out those troublesome amendments and this is a bill designed to pass easily by offering the smallest possible political target.

But this comity comes at a steep price.


Overly Narrow Scope


To start, the bill’s list of in-scope harms is far more limited than it could be, both politically and substantively. It defines as “harms” only seven specific heinous activities, most of which are already clearly illegal: intimate content communicated without consent; content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor; content that induces a child to harm themselves; content used to bully a child; content that foments hatred; content that incites violence; and content that incites violent extremism or terrorism.‍

The bill’s teeth are reserved for only two categories: intimate content communicated without consent (so-called revenge porn) and content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor. These are the only cases where the proposed regulator is to be given the power to compel a social media company to take content down (within 24 hours).

The rest of the bill proposes a slightly modified version of the self-regulation status quo. People can complain to the regulator about what they see or read — such as material affecting children, or hate speech — but the company would still be allowed to decide whether such content should be taken down. Companies would only be required to have clear and transparent complaint processes, and, in the case of children, measures to protect them from bullying and self-harm. (Terrorism and child sexual abuse material are also part of the bill. Again, this is content that even an ardent civil libertarian would have trouble defending.)

This focus on harms to children implicitly leaves adults out of scope on the central issue of online bullying and harassment. Which is a problem, because online harassment isn’t something that stops when you graduate high school. And it’s not something that many adults can just deal with on their own. Adults — in particular, women, racialized and queer individuals, and other marginalized individuals and groups — have been at the forefront in calling out the often devastating consequences of online harassment, much of which doesn’t rise to the legal level of hate speech but is nonetheless socially and individually harmful. Yet the legislation doesn’t go there.

Consider the extensive list of harms related to technology-facilitated gender-based violence enumerated by the Women’s Legal Education & Action Fund (LEAF). Would abuse such as online mobbing or swarming and trolling be covered by this legislation? Are those hate speech? It doesn’t appear so. In any case, the legislation only requires that the company have a plan to deal with complaints following a self-determined transparent process.

On its face, this bill embraces a “positive freedoms” approach to speech that emphasizes the need for equality, in order to secure free-expression rights for all. Such an approach correctly recognizes that the absence of rules itself chills the speech of marginalized individuals and groups and reinforces the position of the powerful.

So, it’s disappointing that the bill appears primarily concerned with going too far in protecting marginalized Canadians. The bill explicitly states that it “does not require the operator to implement measures that unreasonably or disproportionately limit users’ expression on the regulated service” but doesn’t include a direction of equal strength related to promoting equality.

The result is legislation that doubles down on exactly the speech-chilling approach that creates the need for a law like this in the first place.

The legislation does reintroduce the ability of Canadians to file complaints about online hate speech with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (although University of Windsor law professor Richard Moon comments that this process would likely either overwhelm the tribunal or be so selectively used as to render the process moot). But compared with measures taken in other jurisdictions, it’s thin gruel.

Australia’s Online Safety Act, for example, does not restrict its protections to children, and it can direct a service to remove content that meets a legal threshold. What’s more, it covers more than social media platforms, including search engines and electronic messaging services (the latter of which can reach as many people as a social media network).

Daycares or Cigarette Companies?

Overall, the bill takes a light touch to regulation: much of it is focused on improving researchers’ access to data, and the transparency and accessibility of social media companies’ flagging and complaints mechanisms. Companies are also required to provide digital safety plans outlining how they’re meeting their obligations under the legislation.

The legislation’s spirit is captured by its motivating concept, the “duty to act responsibly”: that companies need to consider how their product will affect their users. The regulator can dictate changes but, for the most part, it’s up to the company to decide what to do.

And here we come to the fundamental flaw with Bill C-63: it treats social media companies like daycare providers, when they’re actually more akin to cigarette makers.

A light-touch duty to act responsibly makes sense for for-profit daycares. They deliver a socially desirable product but may face pressures to cut corners and compromise their product. The regulator’s challenge is therefore to ensure that these companies deliver the child care they have agreed to provide, with acceptable quality and safety. They need to create guardrails to keep everyone in bounds. Here, self-regulation and concepts such as duty of care, supplemented with some punitive measures, can make a lot of sense.

Now, consider tobacco companies. If anyone argued they could be regulated by a duty to act responsibly toward their customers, they’d be laughed out of town, yes? Because the problem with tobacco is the product itself, which eventually kills people, if used as intended.

There’s a direct conflict between the public interest in limiting the sale and consumption of tobacco for health reasons and these companies’ economic interest in selling as many cigarettes as possible, despite the health risks. They thus have had enormous incentives to resist and dodge any restraint on their core business, including by burying critical in-house research (sound familiar?).

In such a sector, light regulation, or self-regulation, will yield only cosmetic changes.
Regulating the Business Model

The harms from social media companies — violent hate speech to the point of helping to foment genocide, harassment and discrimination, encouraging children to self-harm — are not aberrations. These harms are inherent to their data-harvesting, surveillance-based, for-profit advertising business models. (This argument ignores those social media networks designed to circulate socially harmful content, for whom a duty to act responsibly is even less tenuous as a regulatory strategy.)

Indeed, companies have tended to be cavalier about online harms, however these are defined, because the social-media platforms that are the ostensible focus of regulation are often not their actual business. As Shoshana Zuboff correctly argues in her book, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, these platforms are merely façades for the business of harvesting data, which the companies can use for advertising or, in effect, sell.

In a data-driven economy, the goal is to collect all the data, all the time. With social media, this is done by working to capture and monetize attention, no matter how socially objectionable or damaging the content. And as every newspaper publisher knows, conflict, scandal and mayhem drive sales.

When it comes to regulation, restrictions on companies’ ability to maximize data harvesting, even when done to limit social harms, are deemed an existential threat to the bottom line. These companies are thus incentivized to work around regulations designed to make their networks healthier for users.

In fact, social media itself isn’t the problem; the present business model is. If these companies made their money differently, through display ads, or subscription fees, or government subsidies, they would place greater emphasis on running user-friendly social networks. They would be more like daycares, because they’d be in the business of providing social media services. Unfortunately, in the world as it currently exists, the actual content on these platforms is secondary to the data they gather and monetize.

A duty to act responsibly will only work when the product itself isn’t causing harm. When the product itself is the problem, you have to directly regulate these companies’ actual business — in this case by restricting their ability to collect and monetize all the data, all the time.

Of course, this is easier said than done. Policy makers and academics rarely discuss the possibility of indirectly addressing these issues via economic policy — such as through taxing data collection and personalized advertising, banning personalized advertising, or requiring that people pay directly for social media services. And while an economic approach would sidestep thorny speech issues, there’s no doubt these companies would make this a battle for the ages.

The difficulty of the fight, however, doesn’t obviate its necessity. Exploring economic regulation would represent a much-needed policy advance in this area.

In fairness, the ability to compel action to deal with (again, a limited set) of harms raises the possibility that the regulator could end up somewhat regulating the business model. Maybe. We can’t be certain because, as University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist has pointed out, so much in Bill C-63 is left up for the regulator to decide.

We’ll only know the actual meaning of this duty to act responsibly (as it relates to a very narrow list of harms and so long as it doesn’t unduly restrict free expression) once the regulator sets its threshold for intervening in a company’s internal affairs and the measures it is prepared to order and enforce. And all this is conditional on the regulator’s ability to compel notoriously pigheaded companies (which have absorbed billion-dollar fines without blinking) to obey. To state it mildly, the stage is not set for success.

The Best We Can Do?


Despite these criticisms, there are good things in this legislation. While the focus on sexual victimization content is far too limited, it is nonetheless an important move that will help real people.

And the proposed regime does hold glimmers of potential. Most notable is the necessary creation of a regulator and ombudsperson who will have significant leeway to investigate and act, including to compel a company to adopt certain measures in pursuit of the legislation’s (limited) objectives. The legislation also seems to leave the door open for the regulator to expand its mandate to focus on (undefined) “safety” issues beyond the specific harms delineated in the bill.

Furthermore, the fixes I’ve suggested throughout — rebalancing the legislation toward equality rights, bringing adults, and not just children, under measures regarding online bullying and harassment; and an Australian-style expansion of the legislation’s scope — should, and can, be addressed in committee hearings.

Overall, this legislation creates a regulator with the potential to do good, if it is well-funded and staffed by suitably ambitious people. But it is a series of half measures. What’s most needed is for the government to fully embrace equality and freedom from domination as prerequisites for true freedom of expression.

When one considers the severity of the challenge and the years spent on this issue, it’s hard not to be critical. Bottom line: This politically expedient, unambitious legislation fails to address the very real needs of so many Canadians. Some things should be worth fighting over.

The opinions expressed in this article/multimedia are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of CIGI or its Board of Directors.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Blayne Haggart  is a CIGI senior fellow and associate professor of political science at Brock University in St. Catharines, Canada. His latest book, with Natasha Tusikov, is The New Knowledge: Information, Data and the Remaking of Global Power.