Russia copies EU commissars with own right to be forgotten law Russia is to push ahead with a new “right to be forgotten” law (RTBF) modelled on the EU version, according to local news reports. Last year the European Court of Justice (ECJ) confirmed that EU citizens have the right to request search engines remove links to outdated or irrelevant information about them. The Kremlin has been …
"How about a 'Right to NOT be forgotten'... for when you notice that you've been mysteriously airbrushed from Glorious History of Soviet Nation?"
Photos were airbrushed only very very rarely, and my impression is that everyone who was airbrushed was dead when it happened, with the sole exception of Goldstein, uh, sorry, Trotsky*. Possibly the most famous example of airbrushing is the photo of Nikolai Yezhov with Stalin on the bank of the Moscow-Volga Canal. ( See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_images_in_the_Soviet_Union ).
(I am discussing airbrushing specifically; cropping photos to remove unwanted people is not the same.)
* See Goldstein's picture here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1984EmmanuelGoldstein.jpg where you can also find a link to his bio.
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
This has little to do with Santayana.
Russian data protection legislation as well as quite a few regs are verbatim translations of the relevant Eu directive. They just translated another one. Same as they did with Data protection, etc.
Nothing new under the sun - business as usual on the coast of Moskva River - if it makes sense and if it is not crossing one of "red lines" it is copied and re-used. That has been the modus operandi since the 1990-es and personally I do not see anything wrong with this modus operandi.
I think t'other side of the iron curtain has been sorely misrepresented in the UK.
Heavens! We might even have been so brainwashed and mind warped into believing that the UK won WW2 on its own, Russian contribution to the WW2 was minimalist and all of Eastern (well Central?) Europe's woes rest on Ruski
Sad innit
I think its fair to say that Russia's (or more accurately the Soviet Union's) success in WWII was achieved despite the efforts of Stalin and his muderous bastard cronies, not because of. However the post WWII enslavement of Central and Eastern Europe can be blamed squarely on Stalin and his successors.
Now Vladimir Putrid wants to recreate the worst excesses of the Soviet Union by illegally reacquiring territory lost to freedom, and by re-enslaving the Russian population
Does dodgy politics deny the cost made and sacrifices given?
If so what should the England do about their -ahem- *cough* *cough* excesses in Africa, India (as in Indian continent now making India, Pakistan and Bangladesh) and would that extend to the Americas too?
And what about the Irish, Scots and Welsh clearances as well as those inflicted upon the English poor themselves?
Pray tell
And what should the West do about blind eyes inflicted simulaneously upon Roosevelt (?), Churchill and Stalin post-war when it was permitted ti despatch about a third os all unarmed military, civilians, children held in captivity?
Pray tell on that too s'il vous plait
I'm not denying anything the Russians did - their troops bore the brunt of WWII and without them the war could well have ended differently. However that does not justify the excesses of Stalin and his successors, or the thieving greed and suppression now enforced by Putin and his cronies. The events are distinct different issues and have no connection
As to the rights and wrongs of the British Empire, that history has no bearing on Putins action now.
As to the rights and wrongs of the British Empire, that history has no bearing on Putins action now.
While you are correct, have you ever noticed that when any political, racial, ethical topic is brought up about any country or any leader, that the excesses of the poster's country are brought up? I'm not sure if it's to remind others of their past guilts or to make the current poster be in the "right".
We can't correct the wrongs done in the past, only try not to do wrong in the present. I, personally, cannot think of any country that doesn't have a closet full of skeletons or questionable behaviors in their past and many are still doing questionable things.. including my own.
You appear to be taking the after the fact homogenised and adjusted "facts" as being the "truth".
The colonisation of India was not an originally deliberate act by the British government. It came about slowly because of trade. The East India Company wished to trade with the many independant states which made up India. It was normal for caravans of goods to be escorted by armed men becuse of the lawlessness common at the time and place. The company decided it would be more economical and reliable to hire their own permanent guards instead of getting locals in each region on a temporary basis. This guards developed into a company army. The development continued until the company had effectively taken control of much of India. The British government then decided that a British company should not have this sort of control of a foreign region and effectively nationalised the company and in the process turning much of India into British colonies.
What this resulted in was the development of much of India and the suppression of customs which were abhorent to not merely the British, but many of the locals as well. There were indeed things which now would be called oppreseive, but taken in the currency of the times were perfectly normal.
p.s. if you wish to introduce racism to the argument, please remember that racism (frequently called tribalism) is a normal state of mind throughout the world. The slaves exported from Africa to the Americas were after all captured by locals and then sold to the European traders for export. This was usually because the slaves were off a different tribe to the captors and there-fore of no significance.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
