Suffer the Little Children

The world's attention has snapped to the Syrian refugee crisis. The sight of a drowned Syrian toddler has flashed across the newspapers of the world and the massive upheaval of human life has been given a face and a name.

Aylan Kurdi.

This is the image that has shocked the world.

This an image of Aylan (left) during happier times.

The sight of a boy, not old enough to understand why he had to flee, washed up on the beach in Greece. He has become the face and name of Syria's human suffering. 

This isn't the first time that the world has been spurred into action by the sight of a suffering child. One of the most famous examples is that of the 'burning girl' in Vietnam. 

However, dying children have influenced policy for the past several decades. 

This child led the United States to commit troops into Somalia in order to overthrow the local warlords and deliver food to the people. 

This child, an Afghan refugee in Pakistan, forced the Soviets to concede that there was a human cost to their war in the Central Asian country. 

What is it about suffering children that can motivate the world to open their eyes to a crisis? In many cases, it's exactly the reasons you can think of. Children are the epitome of innocence. They bear absolutely no responsibility for what has happened to them and their only crime was being born in that part of the world. Many parents are able to imagine their own kin in the place of refugees or victims. They are able to sympathize and empathize with full knowledge that, had they ever been placed in a similar situation, they too would have fled to save their flesh and blood. No parent could look at the lifeless body of Aylan and not imagine their own child on that washed up beach. 

Every day we see ISIS atrocities, Syrian barrel bombings, Libyan soldiers shooting civilians and countless massacres in every corner of the globe. We contextualize it into a global framework of politics and international relations. We debate whether or not we should bomb ISIS or perhaps we should stick to an isolationist policy. We wonder just what's happening with the diplomatic talks in Iran to curb their nuclear ambition. We see the Taliban regaining their former strength in Afghanistan but feel that the devil we know is better than the devil we don't. 

At least that's what we should be doing. More often than not, we worry about ourselves. We fear the coming cell phone bill or mortgage payment. We wonder just how we're going to get through the rest of the day with that annoying coworker. We excitedly snuggle up with our spouse while watching Last Week Tonight. 

We sit in our comfy couches, we see the images of nameless refugees in hard to pronounce towns and we feel genuine sorrow and heartbreak. We are moved by the sights and sounds of war, but secretly happy that it is not us who is being covered on the international news. This is the reality of our lives. We don't want to be the parent who has just lost their child to the wild ocean winds. But, we can't look away. 

We will mourn for Aylan. Tears will be shed. Candles will be lit. Refugee quotas will be lifted, incrementally, until we fear that too many foreigners are taking our jobs and livelihoods. 

Then, we will go back to worrying about ourselves and the problems at hand. 

Until the next child. Until the next picture.  

It's Lonely Here On The Left!

In the wake of the massive political shake-up that was the British 2015 election, I've come to realise something.

I'm lonely.

Here, on the left-wing of the political spectrum, it's a fairly lonely place and it doesn't look like it's going to change anytime soon.

But why is it lonely? Why does it seem that there are massive swings towards the right-wing in Western countries? We live in a time of unparalleled information access and scepticism, of freedom of movement and a free-range of ideas. Why are people still rushing towards the conservatives in droves?

Climate change has begun not just to impact our world but has fundamentally shaped our attitude towards fossil fuels and defence. Yet, we continue to elect governments which provide inexcusable tax subsidies to fossil fuel creators at the expense of our nearly-destroyed planet. Social welfare programmes are increasingly being cut as needless and ineffective austerity measures are seen as the only way of balancing budgets. Foreign aid, a core tenant in both saving lives and stopping terrorism, is often on the chopping block of governments and immorally harsh immigration programmes are leading to more and more deaths at sea and inhuman treatments of asylum seekers.

What happened to the future I was promised? The one where we understood that if the lowest class of society are cared for then the nation itself is better off? The one which saw foreign aid programmes, not as a drain on the economy, but an investment in the people around the world? The world which understood that we are at the absolute breaking point when it comes to saving our planet and that only a substantial investment, right now, in green infrastructure can save us?

Where is this future that, only a few years ago, seemed so close?

It's easy to point at a myriad of different sources: Fear mongering, Murdoch papers and fossil-fuel backed billionaires changing the political landscape.

But we on the left also have ourselves to blame.

We don't have any credible candidates who can govern.

Let's take a look around the world and see our line-up.

In Australia, we have Bill Shorten.

*YAWN*

This is a man who can't rouse a sleeping five-year-old on Christmas morning and we expect him to enlighten a nation?

In England, they had Ed Miliband.

Look how that turned out! Conservatives have been handed one of their most successful wins in decades.

In Israel?

Issac Herzog? Tzipi Livni? Nope and nope!

America?

Hillary Clinton. I like Clinton. I have for years. But whether or not she's the progressive white knight that we need her to be? I honestly don't know. I appreciate the fact that she's taking more cues from Elizabeth Warren domestically but, with an electoral system dependent almost entirely on the billionaire class...I've begun to lose hope for a truly left-wing candidate.  

So where does this leave us?

Well....let's just say that I've started to practice the words to this song.

Bibi: The Wrong Man For Obama, The Right Man For Europe.

One can only imagine how Benjamin 'Bibi' Netanyahu felt when he woke up this past Wednesday morning. All polls indicated that he was going to have a very difficult job retaining his Premiership, or possibly lose it, in the wake of increased Arab voters and a general discontent over his tunnel vision over a nuclear Iran. He awoke not to a saddened advisor telling him that he had to vacate his government residence within 48 hours but to elation within his party that the Likud had won an incredible 30 seats in the new Knesset. Now, all he had to do was form a coalition and wait for his congratulations phone call from President Obama. He would be waiting some time.

The relationship between Netanyahu and Obama has been frosty at the best of times. It makes sense when you consider the way that each grew up. Obama is a child of multiple cultures, of America, Hawaii and Indonesia, who saw the impact of a capitalist system that trod on the poorest of its citizens. He immersed himself in community organisation, constitutional law and civil rights and rode the path to the Presidency on the coattails of hope, change and an opening up of the welfare state.

Benjamin Netanyahu, however, went the route that was the diametric opposite of his America counterpart. He grew up in a family where all they knew was the persecution of the Jewish people. Benzion Netanyahu, Bibi's father, was a close friend and secretary of Ze'ev Jabotinsky, a major proponent of Jewish self-defence, and a renowned scholar on the expulsion of Jews from Spain. Whilst Obama spent his formative years in Indonesia and Hawaii, Netanyahu spent them in Philadelphia and Israel. Netanyahu enlisted in the IDF and rose to a prestigious position within special forces. He lost his brother to Palestinian terrorists in the 1976 Entebbe hijacking, a loss which would affect any person. Returning to the US and to get his degree from MIT he went to work at the Boston Consulting Group. From there he became Israeli ambassador to the United States and eventually entered Israeli politics. Quite simply, Netanyahu is the antithesis of Obama.

Obama is overtly left-wing though his base has soured against him (refusal to prosecute Wall Street bankers and the lack of oversight in regards to drone strikes among other things) and Netanyahu is overtly right-wing. Hours before the polls were about to close on Tuesday he made a personal plea to the right-wing of Israel saying that Arabs were being bussed to the polling stations in a coordinated effort with the left-wing foreign-backed NGOs.

The two men have never found common ground and any pretense that there was a salvageable relationship between them was dismissed the moment that Netanyahu lectured Obama in his office in front of the world media. With Netanyahu now beginning his fourth term and Obama finishing his second there is no need for the two men to pretend to like each other. The common complaint from the left-wing was that Netanyahu had almost destroyed the US-Israel relationship by his posturing and arrogance. They claimed that his short-sightedness had left Israel vulnerable when they were in desperate need of military and diplomatic support, that Israel would be a pariah in the international community.

But, perhaps Bibi was playing the long-game?

When Obama took office in 2009 there was a world of promise, his supporters and detractors alike were swept up in the idea of hope and change. Obama's first major test in the Middle East came in the form of the 2009 Iranian elections. The protests, the so-called Green Revolution, were broadcast live on television and through social media. As the young students of Iran were being beaten down by the Basij and demanding their right to a free and fair election Obama did nothing. He waited and waited and waited until he saw what was going to happen...then he made a decision to act. This was the beginning of a quasi-isolationist policy that would become his doctrine: wait, see, act. This was the first time that Netanyahu saw exactly who his counterpart was...and he was not impressed.

When the Arab Spring saw the overthrow of several Middle Eastern dictatorships Obama was criticised for throwing several key US allies under the bus. I believe that he has faced undue criticism for his actions (or lack thereof) as these protests were notably secular in nature and were truly needed. Obama must have felt that this was the spark that was needed to fan the flames of democracy in the region. However, he does deserve criticism for not bolstering the student and secular movements and sending advisors to help guide the chaotic governments to democracy and he deserves the condemnation for not stopping Assad when he was massacring his own people. One can only imagine how the Middle East today would be if they had received more support from the Great Satan.

With these constant failures of leadership by Obama; Netanyahu must have become incredibly anxious. Bibi was dealing with his own social protests in 2011 (protests that I proudly took part in) but his eye was always on how Obama would deal with his arch-enemy: the Mullahs of Iran. Netanyahu must have longed for the days of George W Bush and his neo-conservative policies. He must have thrown his hands up in frustration and said "who can we trust?". Then, he would have turned on the news and looked at what was happening in Europe.

It is no secret that there has been a clash between North African, sub-Saharan African and Middle Eastern immigrants in Europe and many non-Islamic citizens of France, Sweden, Italy and other European nations. Burning cars have become a staple of Paris and videos have begun to populate YouTube showing the notable rise of anti-Semitic attacks and attitudes to anyone who looks remotely Jewish. The tensions have led to a rise in far-right parties being elected to parliaments throughout the continent including Golden Dawn in Greece, UKIP in England and the National Front in France.

These groups all hold extreme views in regards to immigration and often find themselves siding with Israel as they see the small Jewish country as the bulwark against Islamic extremism. With the rise of ISIS in Iraq and Syria, more and more European Muslims  joining the barbaric terror group and an increase in Islamic attacks against European institutions such as Charlie Hebdo it is no wonder that Netanyahu sees Europe now as his natural allies. No doubt that Bibi hopes European leaders will no longer focus as much on the peace process between him and the Palestinians but instead on the global response to ISIS.

As the tensions in Europe begin to come to a boil, Netanyahu's increasingly fiery rhetoric against ISIS and Muslims will find a natural home in the new, xenophobic Europe. The peace process between the Palestinians and Israel will fall by the wayside as the far-right begins to gain more and more power and influence within the European parliaments. This works for Netanyahu. He wants the world to focus on Islamic State and combating the regional terror group. ISIS's gains in the Middle East stoke fears that they could soon be in Europe and beyond. This is how the right-wing will continue to rise and Netanyahu will be welcomed in every European capital. Obama, meanwhile, will be forced to sit back and watch as the left-wing crumbles in the face of overwhelming domination from right-wing groups. As Europe's right enjoys their renaissance Obama will look at how Netanyahu is treated like a king and he lament the opportunities that he missed.

The Next Peter Greste Will Be Tried In Canberra

Have you heard the story of Peter Greste?

He, along with several other Al Jazeera journalists, are currently sitting in an Egyptian jail cell for breaching Egyptian national security. According to the government they colluded with the Muslim Brotherhood, an internationally recognised terror group, and so were imprisoned.

The 'collusion' that the Egyptian State accuses them of is what we here in Australia (and around the world) call simply 'reporting'. Yes...reporting. It boggles the mind that any country, especially Egypt where a large percentage of the population supported the Muslim Brotherhood in the both the past election and during the protests. Some put the MB membership as high as 2 million and so it reasons that journalists would wish to discover more about this large swarths of Egyptians.

This was the job that Peter Greste was doing when he was arrested. The trial, to put it lightly, was a sham. Evidence which the prosecutors claim was proof that AJ sought to harm Egyptian national security was in fact filmed by other networks, during his summation the judge claimed that the journalists were 'in league with the devil' (who presumably could not be called as a defence witness) and even Egypt's President has come out regretting the international trial.

But to this day, several months since their sentencing, Peter Greste and his Al Jazeera compatriots are facing a seven year imprisonment for simply doing their jobs. Not even for spilling secrets or holding the Egyptian government to account for their (grave) human rights abuses. Their continued incarceration is a blight on society and we should never forget their names.

But what does this have to do with Australia?

Because in Australia if you want to hold the security agencies to account then you're going to find yourself in jail for the next decade.

See here in Australia we've recently begun to talk a lot about Islamic State. They've been getting quite a bit of press and because of that we've joined the coalition against them.

I've already made my feelings about this clear in my previous blog post about who should really be fighting ISIS but as I am not in charge of either the Australian or US armies I guess I just have to accept the decisions of the elected representatives.

However what I don't accept is the pretence of national security to bolster the surveillance state. This is what has recently happened with the passage of our new national security laws.

The laws essentially allows intelligence operations to be designated as 'SIO' or 'Special Intelligence Operations which, if revealed by the media, can land that journalist in jail for a minimum of ten years. So if ASIO was conducting one of these 'SIOs' and something went horribly wrong (not out of the scope of possibility...just google Dr Muhamed Haneef) then this colossal screw up could be branded an SIO and any mention of it would essentially be censored.

This is not how democracies should act.

Recently ASIO and the Australian Federal Police conducted sweeping raids against a number of targets across Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. This was due to a terror threat against a random member of the Australian public. It has been claimed that IS terrorists overseas contacted a cell here in Australia and told them to snatch a random person off the street and to behead them.

That in itself is a frightening scenario. The beheadings of Western journalists and aid workers have shocked the world but to have it occur here in the streets of Australia would reverberate around the country. Fear would cripple society. Not just because of the gruesome act itself but because it was so entirely random. This is how terrorists work. They don't need to do a lot...they sometimes don't even have to do anything...they just need to evoke fear.

So the Police and security agencies swooped on the suspected terrorists and arrested them. A frightening image of a sword bundled into an evidence bag was splashed across the newspapers throughout the Commonwealth.

 'Terror in Australia' the headlines read. Unfortunately of the dozen or so who were arrested they've almost all been released without charge.

"But the sword" I hear you ask

Yeah...the sword was plastic.

This is one of the most disturbing aspects of these recent sweeping changes. The threat that Australia faces from terrorism pales compared to the response. Australia has simply gotten caught up in the idea that it is a ripe target for Islamic extremism and it is based more on conjecture than evidence.

This is not to say that Islamic extremism is not a threat. It is. I truly believe that it is a matter of when, rather than if, IS, IJ, JI, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda or any of the other myriad of extremist groups are able to effectively target us on our home soil.

But the fact of the matter remains we are not facing the same threat from terrorists that Iraq, America or Israel. There is very little radicalisation within our Islamic communities and if so the Islamic communities have, with some exceptions, come out firmly and publicly against radicalisation.

Rather than conjuring up a threat to Australians why don't we begin to focus on the very real problems of domestic violence? How about we use some of those over-arching powers to ensure that women within our communities are safe to walk the streets at night without the threat of rape? Perhaps we should have a couple of SIOs on the uncomfortably close relationship between corporations and politicians?

The next Peter Greste will be tried in Canberra. That's the reality of the situation with these new laws. If a journalist decides to expose an ASIO bungle or an immoral operation (it should be noted that the government was forced to backdown in immunity for ASIO officers in the case of torture) then they will have to have major financial backing before even thinking about printing the article. The reason is that they will be hauled before the courts and they will be forced to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars of legal fees JUST to be found innocent. That's enough to force any journalist to think twice before 'endangering national security'...or as they call it....'reporting'.

Realistically these laws should never have made it to parliament....and they should have at least been up for debate by our so called 'Opposition'. Only a year ago we were the envy of the developed world: a booming economy, a progressive government and legislation such as the ETS and NBN. Today we have is mocked overseas, feared at home and is only able to boost their poll numbers by whipping up the near invisible threat of Islamic extremism.

The same tired, old playbook.

Who Else Can Fight ISIS?

It goes without saying that ISIS (the Islamic State In Syria) is beyond abhorrent. They are an evil group and represent the very worst of humanity. Their litany of crimes, which grows more gruesome by the day, reads as if the nightmares of the Middle Ages had come to life and had taken over large swarths of Syria and Iraq.

Unfortunately the fundamentalist ideology is based on 12th Century doctrine and they have proved to be a formidable armed force. They have not only captured Iraqi oil wells but they are also financing their slaughter by robbing banks, selling slaves and are recruiting through social media.

Because of this the world has finally decided to reign them in.

Last week President Obama announced that the US Military would commence operations to "degrade and ultimately destroy" ISIS. Fantastic. Who else is showing up? Well Poland, France, Australia, Britain, Germany, Netherlands and Canada.

Great group! Seriously! For these nations to commit troops, be they air or land, shows that they believe that ISIS is an organisation that has to be stopped at the stem before it can worm its way into the rest of the world. I wholeheartedly stand with these countries in their battle against these Islamic terrorists.

But they shouldn't be fighting this war.

This is not their war and they should not be sacrificing blood and treasure to reign in this disgusting group.

It's only in the last few hours that Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan, Qatar and Egypt have all signalled their support for a US led coalition against ISIS.

Except their support isn't really coming with troops or planes or any kind of legitimate help.

They're mainly there for moral support. They're the guys who stand on the sidelines and say "buck up, trooper". They're not actually going to get their hands dirty. They are providing intelligence and humanitarian relief for those who are suffering under the oppressive heel of ISIS.

That's bullshit.

Consider the fact that it was Qatar and Saudi Arabia who funded ISIS as a counter to Bashar al-Assad. Also consider that Saudi Arabia is the greatest exporter of Islamic fundamentalist terror as they have been spreading the Wahhabis wings throughout the world. Petro-dollars are helping fuel the very terror that the West is now committed to fighting.

Yet none of these countries, who are all major beneficiaries of US funded weapons (state of the art weapons), are committing even a machine gun? The Israelis have already said that if ISIS takes down the Jordanians they'd blow the living hell out of them. If the Arab nations weren't so pissy about siding with Israel then I'm sure that you would be seeing Star of David adorned jets flying over Iraq and Syria bombing ISIS positions right now.

But here's the thing.

The Arabs want to play themselves as the perpetual victim. They want to export this terror and then have the West come and help them when it bites them in the leg. THEN they want the West to take the blame for any Arab casualties that may occur. The Arab States not only have a role in fighting ISIS, they have the only role. They are the ones who should be forming a broad Arab coalition and killing ISIS. The West will gladly help them with intelligence, logistics and humanitarian missions but that's it.

IF (and that's a big if) the Arab armies find that they are not match for ISIS then absolutely the West should commit themselves militarily to fighting the extremist group.

I have never shied away from advocating interventionist policies if I believe that it is in the greater good of the human race. I do believe that ISIS MUST be stopped militarily. But the Arab nations have to finally come to the table and lead the charge.

Arabs, it's time to embrace your inner Saladin and start kicking ass.  

This Country Is Making Me Sad

Save for the 1930s there has never been a more depressing time to be growing up in Australia. Whilst our standard of living may be the envy of the world, our economy booming and the technology at our fingertips constantly astounding us more and more each day we appear to be lacking in a far more important element: morality. 

There is a moral vacuum in this country and it has become evident that the institutions that we once turned to for support and advice have failed us. Religion has become embroiled in scandal, politics in corruption and government services are beyond inadequate. As a young man who has grown up in this nation, imbued by my parents and civic leaders with a strong moral compass, I cannot help but look at the crumbling state of this country and feel despair. Where did we go wrong and how can we fix it? 

First it’s important to identify some of the moral failings that this country has experienced. Our religious institutions are currently on trial for not only refusing to identify pedophiles within their ranks to police but for actively covering up the crimes and bribing victims for their silence. In politics it seems that we are losing more and more Members of Parliament, on both sides of the aisle, to the Independent Commission Against Corruption enquiry here in NSW and calls for a Federal ICAC are being wilfully ignored by the Australian Parliament. Our policies and legislation on refugees, terrorism, the environment and communications infrastructure have made us the laughing stock of the developed world and our government services, such as DOCS, have become woefully underfunded to the point where they are almost doing more harm than good. 

So, yes. Looking around at the institutions one is meant to rely on, meant to have faith in, is simply asking to be slapped in the face by a depressing reality. But what can we do to change it? Is it something simplistic such as reintroducing bible studies in schools or a more drastic change such as a dictatorship? The right-wing in the US have developed a strange love-affair with Vladimir Putin, the polar opposite of the feckless Obama, so perhaps Tony Abbott should trade in the budgie smugglers for a horse (he can even keep his shirt off). 

But unfortunately it does not seem that a mere change of government from Labor to Liberal, democracy to dictatorship, will shift from the moral decay that we have begun to experience. This is not a issue which will be resolved by more, or less, faith in the public square. Simply look towards the reign of terror that is ISIS to see the danger of merging of religion and state. Equally devoicing our society completely of religion seeks to undermine the core tenant that has brought Western civilisation to the forefront of the human race. 

Is it perhaps time that we do away with age limits in politics? William Pitt the Younger was only 24 when he ascended to the Prime Minister’s chair and his reign is often considered one of the best that Britain ever experienced. From ending the slave trade to enacting a number of social and economic reforms (along with giving the French a well-deserved hiding) it is easy to imagine that allowing a bit more idealism, not yet tainted by the cruel reality of political life, could do the Parliament a bit of good. Unfortunately every time I see Wyatt Roy in a suit during Question Time I fear that I compare him more to a Ken Doll than a Ken Livingstone.  

Equally the answer is not about funding, or defunding, certain programs or institutions. A bloated budget often leads to a gluttony of problems but equally austerity measures have proven to fail time after time after time. The worst part of our moral decay is that it appears to be endemic and that no amount of public shaming can help stop it. George Pell, recently promoted to his new post in Rome, has no qualms about how he solved the ‘problem’ of institutional child abuse within his ranks and our government continues to promote policies which are making international NGOs decry our treatment of refugees. There is nothing that can help solve our decayed morality in the short term. Only long-term solutions are able to haemorrhage this wound. But for now let’s just understand that we live in an incredibly bleak time but the dawn may soon rise for a brighter tomorrow. 

Jennifer Lawrence....I'm sorry

Today the Internet collectively ejaculated.

Unfortunately I don't think I'm too far off the mark when I say that. You see today was the day that scores of men (and I'm sure some women) have dreamed of. We all finally got to see what Jennifer Lawrence looked like naked.

If you haven't heard (and you will soon) a range of celebrities have had their privacy violated and naked pictures have been posted onto the Internet. Like those men and women I reacted with glee when I learnt about these pictures. They popped up on Reddit and suddenly my mouth was agape.

Was it her?

Could it be faked?

No. Picture after picture was posted showing Lawrence and others in clearly intimate moments (I did not see any of the star mid-coitus and have no plans to look) meant only for their partner. As the day wore on and I got down to my normal day of work I kept seeing news article after news article posted about the incident.

I also saw my friends posting about the leaked pictures. It gave me an understanding that I had not thought of when I saw the original pictures. I like to surround myself with educated people and the women whom I call friends are no exception. These women are at the forefront of the Australian progressive movement and so we often see eye-to-eye over civil rights, refugee rights and the role of women in society. Because of this I trust them implicitly and take everything they say to heart. At times I may not agree with it (see: Israel/Gaza) but I know that it comes from a place of well intention and that they have studied the situation from all sides.

Their tweets began to talk about an invasion of privacy, the lewd nature of men on the Internet and the hypocrisy surrounding these photos. How could we claim to be all for Internet privacy and yet go absolutely ape-shit over naked pictures of celebrities? How would we feel if our private photos were stolen and plastered online? Why should there be rejoicing at this?

From this I performed a small but vital piece of mental gymnastics.

How would I feel if my nudes were leaked? Have I ever sent nude pictures over the internet? Yes. Of course I have. In moments of intense passion, desire or lightheadedness I have of course sent photographs of myself naked to other people. Some of them have my face in them. Even if I had posed naked for artists (I have) those photos are of a completely different nature. These photos are taken for an audience of one, not of one million, but today they are seen by all the world.

As my mind continued to make these leaps and bounds (that I now realise should have been done before) I felt an incredible amount of shame and disgust. As the day wore on I saw these less and less as pictures of a woman whom I had fantasised and desired for years and saw them as what they truly were: abuse.

If I came across a video or a picture of a woman being raped or of a child being sexually molested I would not only feel sick to my stomach I would immediately report it to the police. One time I did unfortunately come across child pornography on Twitter. It disgusted me to no ends and I honestly still feel uneasy about the seedier sides of the Internet since that day.

So why did I not do the same thing when I saw those photos of Jennifer Lawrence?

Because she was an actress and with that comes increased media coverage, speculation and (in truth) I thought that I owned that little bit of her. Now these were not the things that came to my mind when I saw the pictures...they were what I thought afterwards, what I thought when I had returned to my senses. It's a disgusting realisation for one to have: that you have turned into the thing you have always claimed to hate.

To Jennifer Lawrence and everyone else who have had their phones hacked, their privacy invaded and their lives shattered...I am sorry. I am truly, truly sorry.

No I did not post those pictures. I committed no illegal act. I will never see the inside of a jail cell for what I have done. But I have perpetuated the abuse that you are suffering right now. Please, forgive me one day.