3 ms·

> Okay, name me one instance (1) where a citizen of a western country had their identity censored in any sense by their government. Eugene Shvidler‘s sanctioni

> Okay, name me one instance (1) where a citizen of a western country had their identity censored in any sense by their government. Eugene Shvidler‘s sanctioning by the UK poisoned his identity. A UK-US dual citizen living in Britain who had Russian business dealings. The sanctions are devastating to personal freedom. Beyond the direct financial impact, they make it very difficult to travel, engage in charity or use digital goods. You might argue he deserved it for making money in Russia, but the lack of due process is astounding. His commercial behaviour predates any legal prohibition and he didn’t get to argue his case in front of a judge/jury before a punishment was installed. https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/jul/19/sanctions-regime-put-to-legal-test-in-uk-as-oligarch-seeks-release-of-assets https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/jul/19/sanctions-regime...

kiitos 3y ago
Sanctions are an important component of our society, in the broadest sense. They are net good, not bad.
- spacebanana7 3y ago
  Sanctions are effective tools at undermining the economic & industrial base of an adversary. They’re poor tools as substitutes for criminal penalties for local residents.
  - kiitos 3y ago
    Less "adversary" as evaluated by a specific entity, more "bad actor" as evaluated by the collective. Which is the intent. Of course nobody issuing sanctions specifically intends them to be criminal penalties for local (target) residents, it's nonsensical anyway as the issuer(s) generally don't have any kind of criminal authority in the relevant jurisdictions.
    - spacebanana7 3y ago
      Suffragettes, civil rights activists and Vietnam war protesters would’ve all been considered “bad actors” by their democratic governments at stages of their journey.
      - kiitos 3y ago
        Yeah, but we course-corrected on those mistakes. That's how civil society works. We (necessarily) delegate trust and authority to higher-order abstract entities (i.e. the state) and make sure we have ways to influence how they behave (i.e. elections).
        spacebanana7 3y ago
        Eventually we course corrected, but illiberal government oppression of legitimate viewpoints delayed it. See the British government’s crackdowns on Trade Unions in the nineteenth century, for instance.
- logicchains 3y ago
  They're only a net good if you think the government of the biggest economy is always morally right. Because only sanctions by the biggest economies have any impact. Most of the people in the world who aren't Americans view America's foreign policy as overwhelmingly a net negative, so for most of the world those sanctions are a net bad.
- BeFlatXIII 3y ago
  [ citation needed ]
  - kiitos 3y ago
    (waves hands around generally) everything?
jiggawatts 3y ago
Nowhere in the linked article does it say that his identity was censored or revoked by any government. He's a dual-citizen and presumably has his identifying papers on hand. To quote Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Shvidler#Sanctions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Shvidler#Sanctions Shvidler's sanctions take the form of a worldwide asset freeze, and transport sanctions; they do not affect his British citizenship. Painting a free billionaire oligarch living the high life abroad from Russia as a victim is not a very convincing example.
- spacebanana7 3y ago
  The challenge wasn’t precisely about revocation of citizenship, although you could take the example of Shamina Begum for that. The problem with these rulings isn’t so much that no punishment is deserved, but that a government minister / civil service employee can declare somebody guilty. The only recourse is pursuing legal action to prove your own innocence.
  - jiggawatts 3y ago
    You seem to be conflating two wildly unrelated concepts here. This discourse is (very specifically!) about identity papers, not sanctions or any other form of government use and abuse of power.
    - spacebanana7 3y ago
      The thread has drifted from government identity to censorship, then to sanctions and abuse of power. It’s faithful to the original topic because strong government identity assists state actors who pursue those outcomes.
- Macha 3y ago
  The crypto people are very concerned about what happens to them when they believe they will inevitably become an oligarch. It's all a bit "temporarily embarrassed billionaire"

kiitos 3y ago

Sanctions are an important component of our society, in the broadest sense. They are net good, not bad.

spacebanana7 3y ago
Sanctions are effective tools at undermining the economic & industrial base of an adversary. They’re poor tools as substitutes for criminal penalties for local residents.
- kiitos 3y ago
  Less "adversary" as evaluated by a specific entity, more "bad actor" as evaluated by the collective. Which is the intent. Of course nobody issuing sanctions specifically intends them to be criminal penalties for local (target) residents, it's nonsensical anyway as the issuer(s) generally don't have any kind of criminal authority in the relevant jurisdictions.
  - spacebanana7 3y ago
    Suffragettes, civil rights activists and Vietnam war protesters would’ve all been considered “bad actors” by their democratic governments at stages of their journey.
    - kiitos 3y ago
      Yeah, but we course-corrected on those mistakes. That's how civil society works. We (necessarily) delegate trust and authority to higher-order abstract entities (i.e. the state) and make sure we have ways to influence how they behave (i.e. elections).
      - spacebanana7 3y ago
        Eventually we course corrected, but illiberal government oppression of legitimate viewpoints delayed it. See the British government’s crackdowns on Trade Unions in the nineteenth century, for instance.
logicchains 3y ago
They're only a net good if you think the government of the biggest economy is always morally right. Because only sanctions by the biggest economies have any impact. Most of the people in the world who aren't Americans view America's foreign policy as overwhelmingly a net negative, so for most of the world those sanctions are a net bad.
BeFlatXIII 3y ago
[ citation needed ]
- kiitos 3y ago
  (waves hands around generally) everything?

jiggawatts 3y ago

Nowhere in the linked article does it say that his identity was censored or revoked by any government. He's a dual-citizen and presumably has his identifying papers on hand. To quote Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Shvidler#Sanctions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Shvidler#Sanctions Shvidler's sanctions take the form of a worldwide asset freeze, and transport sanctions; they do not affect his British citizenship. Painting a free billionaire oligarch living the high life abroad from Russia as a victim is not a very convincing example.

spacebanana7 3y ago
The challenge wasn’t precisely about revocation of citizenship, although you could take the example of Shamina Begum for that. The problem with these rulings isn’t so much that no punishment is deserved, but that a government minister / civil service employee can declare somebody guilty. The only recourse is pursuing legal action to prove your own innocence.
- jiggawatts 3y ago
  You seem to be conflating two wildly unrelated concepts here. This discourse is (very specifically!) about identity papers, not sanctions or any other form of government use and abuse of power.
  - spacebanana7 3y ago
    The thread has drifted from government identity to censorship, then to sanctions and abuse of power. It’s faithful to the original topic because strong government identity assists state actors who pursue those outcomes.
Macha 3y ago
The crypto people are very concerned about what happens to them when they believe they will inevitably become an oligarch. It's all a bit "temporarily embarrassed billionaire"