
EU Agencies Falsely Report More Than 550 Archive.org URLs as Terrorist Content - jonah-archive
https://blog.archive.org/2019/04/10/official-eu-agencies-falsely-report-more-than-550-archive-org-urls-as-terrorist-content/
======
deogeo
A clever circumvention of innocent until proven guilty - make disobedience
carry huge legal risk. You must obey orders (takedown 'requests'), not backed
by any court. If you fail, and _one_ turns out to be legitimate, you get
punished.

Imagine if you had to stop doing business with anyone reported as a thief (but
not convicted).

~~~
stcredzero
The ability to smear through accusation, without proof, without due process,
and without the presumption of innocence has always been the province of
tyrants in power and the tool of would-be tyrants trying to gain power.

Those who accuse and un-person are the villains throughout history. In the
past, people were smeared as sexually loose, as belonging to the "wrong"
religion, or as having the "wrong" sexual orientation. In the past, people
were smeared as being of the "wrong" racial background. Always be wary of
those who smear to enforce their power.

A free society is one, where people and ideas can show up, be given a chance,
and stand or fall on their character and merits. Evil is recognizable in its
epistemological hazards:

    
    
        - Don't ask questions.
        - Don't read or hear the heretical opinion.
        - Don't associate with the "wrong" people.
    

The side of good, the side of the long arc of justice, is the side of rational
argument and of principles. The side of justice is the one saying, "hear me
out."

It's the side of evil which uses vilification, seeks to silence, and uses fear
against questions.

~~~
minikites
>A free society is one, where people and ideas can show up, be given a chance,
and stand or fall on their character and merits.

How do you square this with the recent surge in flat Earth and anti-
vaccination beliefs? The merits of truth aren't guaranteed to win this battle.

~~~
narag
_The merits of truth aren 't guaranteed to win this battle._

Winning a battle is an unfortunate metaphor for public debate or democracy in
general. After all, what we want is to discuss options without violence.

Someone has to win elections, right. But that doesn't make the losing option
wrong, just not as popular. There are many options that I consider wrong, or
very wrong, that are "winning" right now. I accept that situation, at least
while there's no need for me to adopt them. What I find scary is what
stcredzero points: that many ideas "win" by despicable means.

~~~
minikites
>After all, what we want is to discuss options without violence.

One side of this debate is inherently violent. People are dying from easily
preventable diseases.

>What I find scary is what stcredzero points: that many ideas "win" by
despicable means.

Anti-vaccination beliefs are already winning by despicable means because those
with virtuous means choose to do nothing.

~~~
lobotryas
But the pro-vaxx side DOES do something. Everything from debate to memes are
used to either disprove or mock the anti-vaxx side.

The overall point is that we need to defend our ideas through speech and not
through IG/FB censoring anti-vaxx speech.

------
smsm42
Funny how exactly EU follows the path Russia has recently taken. After Russia
passed the law that banned online material promoting terrorist content,
suicide, drug information and harm to children, and so on, there was an
avalanche of false takedown requests and misidentifications, including
attempting to block Wikipedia, ban Bhagavad Gita commentary (yes, really) and
many more anecdotes that sound funny unless you live there. Now Russia has
progressed to banning "insulting" the government publicly, i.e. direct ban on
political dissent. I wonder how long it would be until EU does the same.

~~~
w1nst0nsm1th
I think we’re still a long way before we reach the excess of Russia regarding
free speech et subordination of democratic values.

~~~
oarsinsync
Spain banned speech critical of the government several years ago, and several
people have been jailed already. At least one person has been jailed over a
tweet.

Europe isn’t one big whole, parts of it are already obviously worse than
others.

~~~
honzzz
> Spain banned speech critical of the government

Could you please provide some reference? I seriously doubt that what you said
is correct.

~~~
oska
Spain has passed a law banning the “glorification of terrorism” or
“humiliating victims of terrorism”. While this is not 'speech critical of the
government' the law is vaguely worded and has been broadly interpreted. More
detail in this report from Amnesty International:

[https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/03/Spain-
Counter...](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/03/Spain-Counter-
terror-law-used-to-crush-satire-and-creative-expression-online/)

~~~
narag
I don't know why you're being downvoted. While the GP comment is total BS,
what you wrote is simply the facts.

There's nobody in jail for writing anything.

The report is based on facts, but it goes overboard with the conclusions.

Edit: the BS comment is by oarsinsync, so it should be GGP, sorry if that led
to confusionl.

~~~
oarsinsync
Apologies, I appear to have overstated things for sure.

That said, satire against the police force lands you in court:

[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/07/satirical-
arti...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/07/satirical-article-
spanish-riot-police-cocaine-lands-editor-el-jueves-court-catalonia)

And tweeting can get you a suspended sentence (which got overturned on appeal,
but didn't prevent the original conviction):

[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/01/spanish-
studen...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/01/spanish-student-
cassandra-vera-conviction-twitter-joke-overturned)

I did overstate things, but "total BS" doesn't seem fair either.

~~~
narag
First of all, I'm opposed to that law. If it was up to me, it would be
annihilated from existence.

Please understand that joining a few imprecisions, innocuous in isolation, the
result is totally incorrect.

'Incorrect' would have been better than 'BS' indeed, sorry. The reason for
verbal escalation is we have to see this kind of "imprecision" very often and
it's not funny anymore.

------
ascendantlogic
Politicians do not care about the ramifications of this. They only care about
granting themselves power over who sees what when through the guise of
combating hate speech, terrorism, child porn, etc. Posting a blog about this
will change nothing.

~~~
durnygbur
It’s really hopeless each time one realizes how French and German politicians
perceive the internet. For them the internet is not synonymous with the
freedom of creativity and expression, but with the freedom to restrain and to
control.

~~~
wongarsu
Germany is ruled by liberal conservatives for well over a decade. While there
is some maliciousness and desire to expand control, I see mostly the lashing
out in an attempt to retain the control the state used to have. The internet
brings an unprecedented amount of freedom, and that weakens the state. Where
previously you could wiretap the phone of a criminal, today you have no way to
read his whatsapp. They don't know how to deal with that. Being a conservative
party with a lot of old voters they try to slow the change down, but their
failure to understand the internet leads to ridiculous attempts.

~~~
Semaphor
Just as a reminder, the ruling party, specifically our chancellor Merkel,
said: "the Internet is Neuland (uncharted territory) for all of us". And that
was only 6 years ago.

~~~
mrguyorama
Was she wrong? The "modern" internet (fast, for everyone, modern sites) was
only about a decade old at the time. That's a mere moment in Germany's history

~~~
durnygbur
Many EU countries with much younger democracies behave much more mature
regarding the internet. Some silly slogan is a miserable explanation of the
state of affairs.

------
mchannon
Not quite my circus, not quite my monkeys, but I wonder if it's possible to
fight fire with fire.

Could a committed group of individuals report the most pernicious EU
politicians' homepages and facebook pages as similarly banned content? Looks
like the firehose has overwhelmed whatever inadequate safeguards they
originally had in place.

~~~
akerro
A few weeks ago there was a case in Poland where a party that strongly
supported article 11 and 13 was using copyrighted pictures and banners made by
a small artist. The news was big in Poland, the party was notified, but they
ignored the case, voted for art 11/13 anyway.

~~~
krageon
Those articles are immaterial (although they are a little ironic) in this
case, because what you are describing was already not allowed. Thankfully a
small artist doesn't need media exposure in this case, this is what courts are
for.

------
tick_tock_tick
It's very sad to see the path the EU has chosen to follow in regards to speech
and the free flow of ideas.

~~~
jdietrich
It's a path that pre-dates the EU. We're a crowded continent with a huge
amount of diversity and a long and bitter history of war. We have learned
through bitter experience that, while free speech is a precious right, it is
also an extremely dangerous one in the wrong circumstances. Germans in
particular are acutely aware of the disastrous consequences of allowing
incitement to go unchallenged.

Free speech is not unconditional in the US; there are many things that an
American could say that would see them brought before the courts. European
nations have simply drawn the line in a different place, for entirely
understandable historical reasons.

~~~
deogeo
Some of us have also learned that censorship can mean censorship of pacifist
and anti-war speech:
[https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/censorship...](https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/censorship#What_was_Censored_3F)

I'm sure sympathizing or trying to understand a terrorist's motives (perhaps
their home country is being occupied by the US?) can fit under the terrorist
content umbrella.

Edit: Let's not leave unaddressed the farcical idea that Europe prior to World
War I was some bastion of free speech, and that this somehow led to the wars:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Germany#German_E...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Germany#German_Empire_\(1871%E2%80%931918\))

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingd...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom#Prior_restraint)

[https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showpdf.php?id=766](https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showpdf.php?id=766)

~~~
smsm42
BTW the famous "fire in the crowded theater" quote was used by Holmes exactly
to suppress anti-government anti-war pacifist speech:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States)

Judge Holmes came to regret his support of speech suppression, but a lot of
people still seem to miss the point.

------
eridius
Why does the proposed EU legislation have a 1-hour deadline? No matter what
you think of the action it's trying to take, a 1-hour deadline is preposterous
for anyone and seems expressly designed to force people to set up an automated
process that acts on takedown notices without prior review. But who benefits
from this?

About the only thing I can think of is if some big company, think Facebook or
Google, lobbied for this because they're large enough that they can actually
implement it with review, whereas anyone smaller can't.

~~~
baroffoos
I think the idea of the 1 hour deadline is to pull it offline before others
can download and repost it. The police/governments especially in Australia and
New Zealand have worked out that there is simply no way to remove a file from
the internet if someone else grabs it in time.

Its a fruitless effort and very dangerous when misused but thats what I assume
they are trying to do anyway.

~~~
Carpetsmoker
I'm in New Zealand, and finding the Christchurch shooter's manifesto was
harder than you'd think.

The "it's not foolproof, so it's fruitless"-argument strikes me as missing the
point. We can't prevent many things from happening (rape, thieving, excessive
drug use, etc.) but that doesn't mean that efforts to contain this are
useless.

~~~
baroffoos
It was very easy to find if you know where to look. If you know the domain for
8chan you could find it in seconds. The massive attempt to hide the video
probably made it much easier to find as so many people who saw it saved it
expecting it to be gone in the future.

~~~
gyaniv
Yes, if you look hard enough, you can find anything. But I think the idea is
to make it so that the bad things don't just continue to float around where
people not looking for it might see it.

Just like terrorist content (how to make bombs/attack infidels and such) still
exists, and those looking for it would probably find it, but the governments
are trying to make it so that innocent people that have no inclination to
perform horrible acts don't run into it by "chance". And just like they did to
Muslim extremists and violent ideas in that front, they are now trying to do
in other areas.

~~~
fxbl0i
I've been on the Internet my entire life and not even once I've seen something
I didn't want or expect to see. It's simply not possible to force people to
watch a several minutes long video or read a manifesto with dozens of pages,
so I don't understand this sentiment.

------
cseelus
Can anyone with a bit more information explain why the EU might have any
saying as to what a San Francisco–based nonprofit digital library can and can
not host?

Disclaimer: I currently am a EU citizen.

~~~
8ytecoder
As they mentioned in passing in the blog, EU might block the site entirely
within EU.

~~~
umhau
Oh, the horror.

~~~
filoleg
Not for anyone outside of the EU, and not in short-term. However, I believe
that it is an alarming tendency that can cause a lot of damage over a
sufficiently long time period.

~~~
ConceptJunkie
It's still a problem for us in the U.S, because there are always politicians
in the U.S. that look at dumb things being done in Europe and say, "We should
be doing that, too.", and voters who will vote for them.

~~~
umhau
In the long term, though, it could cause noticible implosion of related
industries. I'm kinda imagining that this kind of regulation is going to be so
clearly harmful that its removed.

------
andjd
In situations with notice-and-takedown like this, I always wonder why there
aren't stronger protections against abuse. Should a platform or user who had
their content ordered removed in error be able to receive damages? Should the
lawyers or civil servants instigating these notices be disciplined for issuing
erroneous, improper, or overly broad takedown notices be disciplined or
blacklisted?

~~~
smsm42
I guess the same reason why police and government is allowed to lie to you,
but if you lie to police or government you're a felon. Because they can. As
long as people vote for such situation to continue, it continues.

------
mirimir
Hey, someone ought to start reporting EU sites as "terrorist content".

Edit: Or better yet, report major MPAA members for copyright infringement,
using spoofed accounts for other major MPAA members :)

~~~
Carpetsmoker
Wouldn't knowingly sending false reports be a misdemeanour, or even felony?

~~~
nejlika
Then isn't sending reports without verifying their validity the same thing?

------
andybak
So underfunded and overworked EU agency is asked to manage reporting for
poorly thought out and overly broad legislation.

Maybe this is the best outcome as it might provide a valid defense for those
who choose to ignore the notices.

~~~
icelancer
> So underfunded and overworked EU agency

Like engineers who have never underestimated their time commitments to a
project, government agencies have never been overfunded.

------
zentiggr
How do we push back on these agencies for their obvious flawed process?

~~~
ghda
We don’t push back on the process, we push back on the principle.

The point of the principle of free speech is not that all speech is beneficial
but that we can’t possibly trust any agency with the power to decide what is
and isn’t.

The “process” probably has no more flaws than any other process designed and
implemented by mortals, it just goes to demonstrate why the whole censor-the-
internet idea is wrong.

~~~
rhizome
Where do you stand on falsely claiming "fire" in a crowded movie theater?

~~~
topspin
I'm old enough to remember when conservative pundits would pose similar
challenges when discussing which forms of contemporary music needed to be
outlawed. So where I stand is that I've learned to associate anyone offering
the fire in a crowded theater argument as another advocate of the prevailing
moral panic.

~~~
int_19h
The "fire in a crowded theater" argument was created by advocates of the
prevailing moral panic, in fact. The panic in question was anti-war and anti-
draft propaganda by socialist parties in the USA during WW1, and the phrase
originated in a Supreme Court ruling that said that it's legal for the federal
government to imprison people for speaking such horrible things.

It never ceases to amaze me how common this trope remains in defense of
censorship, given that it was _designed_ as a slippery slope.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States)

~~~
topspin
> The "fire in a crowded theater" argument was created by advocates of the
> prevailing moral panic

I know.

------
0x0
Is this the end of websites being available 24 hours a day? Just switch off
the web server every evening when leaving the office?

~~~
pas
The CIO (!) of one of our clients seriously proposed that last year for a new
big online B2C service. We were just laughing at that point, knowing the CEO
will not go for that, but even the though process was scary, and made some
sense.

------
driverdan
What exactly is "terrorist content?" Do calls to arms from the American
Revolution against England count? What about other revolutions of the past?

~~~
ilaksh
Yes, I would say that anyone calling for armed revolution would be classified
as a terrorist by the government they opposed.

Governments tend not to take sides against other governments unless they want
to go to war with them in some way. So you can imagine that in many cases most
other governments would back the terrorist label.

This points out one of the big issues with the use of the word "terrorist" in
today's world. It is a label that dominant organizations use against any group
that presents a serious threat, regardless of the activities of that group.

~~~
int_19h
I think the question is, does it stop being terrorist if a revolution happened
in the past, but the actions are still recognized as having being terrorism?
Are Jacobine writings terrorist in nature, for example? How about a scan of
Pravda circa 1918, with headlines like "Long live the Red Terror!"?

------
stefek99
Reminds me of: [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/mar/09/man-
charged-...](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/mar/09/man-charged-with-
leeds-terror-offences-appears-in-court)

> The charges allege that Golaszewski was found with copies of 21 Silent
> Techniques of Killing by Master Hei Long, The Anarchist Cookbook and The Big
> Book of Mischief on 23 February in Leeds. It is also alleged that he had in
> his possession the Improvised Munitions Handbook, Murder Inc, The Book by
> Jack the Rippa, and Minimanual Of The Urban Guerilla, by Carlos Marighella.

The guy is charged with possession of six books, some of these books are
likely to be present at archive.org

[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/pawel-
golaszewsk...](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/pawel-golaszewski-
uk-terror-leeds-arrest-right-wing-a8815116.html)

> Pawel Golaszewski faces six counts under the Terrorism Act and has been
> charged with possession of a document or record "containing information of a
> kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of
> terrorism".

Six books, six counts.

••••••••••

Unsure where is this heading. Does anyone think the law can stop technology?

~~~
int_19h
I knew that UK was pretty bad in this regard, but I didn't realize it's _that_
bad. You know what "possession of a document or record containing information
of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of
terrorism" reminds me of? "Contacts leading to suspicion of espionage" \- one
of the common charges under Article 58 in USSR circa 1930s, according to
Solzhenitsyn.

------
matt4077
Essentially, this is the DMCA for terrorist content. With a somewhat short
time requirement driven by some recent events (New Zealand being the most
prominent, but not first).

Here's a link to the current EU draft: [https://www.laquadrature.net/wp-
content/uploads/sites/8/2019...](https://www.laquadrature.net/wp-
content/uploads/sites/8/2019/04/Terr-Reg-LIBE-Final-Compromises.pdf)

(It's a document highlighting the latest changes from committee, making it
somewhat hard to read but not less interesting)

I'm not sure if it's fair to compare notices from the current program, which
sends out notices without any legal force, to what this envisages. The
directive sets out a process and requirements for notices, including detailed
reasoning for each. It also specifically mentions avenues to protest (and sue)
in cases of disagreements.

I'm no particular fan of this for both practical and philosophical reasons. If
youtube had invested in some sort of oversight that prevented this kiwi
neckbeard from live-streaming his massacre of innocents, the vote this week
would probably have ended differently.

------
comboy
Maybe we should have some anonymous (preferably distributed) internet archive
which is only available through tor?

~~~
gruez
This isn't a bad idea. You don't even need that much resources either - only
mirror content that has been taken down from archive.org

------
ars
550 in the past _week_ , not in total!

~~~
SiempreViernes
I guess someone put a test system on a live server? Doubth they have enough
employees to have some just sit there filing takedown claims manually.

~~~
tastroder
From their website it seems like they perform periodical "action days" where
they sit down jointly with different groups and flag content on specific
platforms. Might have been one of those.

~~~
steve_taylor
If it’s urgent enough that websites have to comply within an hour, why on
earth do they wait so long to make these requests in batches?

~~~
SiempreViernes
The one hour compliance is _proposed_ legislation, not actual law. If the
requirement makes it in I expect it would be for extraordinary cases at high
traffic sites, like the new zeeland terrorist livestrem on youtube.

------
huffmsa
I thought Europe got over the whole book burning thing in the 1940s.

------
xorand
Happened in Feb 2019 to a story on telegra.ph archived by me. It was scary
first, then I asked the archive.org webmaster and I understood that it was a
telegra.ph link, not because of the content. Now the archived link works OK.
[https://imgur.com/a/eJd4FeM](https://imgur.com/a/eJd4FeM)

------
nydel
I could see a TPB-style federated proxy service emerging for archived URLs
that are unduly censored.

~~~
ilaksh
Why does it need to be federated? Why not something p2p like IPFS or just
torrents?

~~~
nydel
i may be missing an as-yet-unidentified-by-me core concept here. if a torrent
has multiple listings (and perhaps multiple trackers) then isn't it being
distributed via federation? how is this different from IPFS?

------
Rebelgecko
Interestingly, I can't get one of the linked videos[1] to load, although the
other stuff seems to work fine.

[1]:
[https://archive.org/details/002Baqarah_201712](https://archive.org/details/002Baqarah_201712)

------
natch
Blocking the EU seems to be the only viable option here, right? Am I missing
any less bad options? Or would blocking the EU still leave publishers
vulnerable to some abuse?

------
jijji
Do any web sites based in the USA have to honor these takedown notices from
countries based in the EU?

~~~
sadris
There is an appellate court case pending involving Google and foreign court
orders.

Depending on how is decided is the answer to your question.

Edit: no they do not need to remove content because a foreign entity asked
them to [https://www.engadget.com/2017/11/06/judge-rules-canada-de-
in...](https://www.engadget.com/2017/11/06/judge-rules-canada-de-indexing-
order-wont-apply-google-us/)

------
throw2016
Given US state linked organizations like Atlantic Council, ThinkProgress,
Propornot manned by ex US security services personnel are working with
Facebook, Google and other social media websites to 'takedown' dissent on US
involvement in Yemen, Syria, Venezuela, black activism against police
brutality, general anti-war activism and socialism leaning content it seems
the time to be concerned about censorship is passed.

Who can explain these SV 'relationships' with state actors? Anyone who cares
about censorship should be extremely concerned about state actors flagging
content. Snowden is still in Russia, Assange is virtual imprisoned and Manning
is back in prison. Isn't it curious that these basic actions of whistle
blowing and dissent are not able to operate freely in the west?

Is it simply as transparent as when other countries take down dissent or
imprison activists its censorship and totalitarianism and when we do its 'fake
news', 'Russian propaganda' or 'some reason'. It's incredible people can
ignore everything and talk of free speech, censorship, and democracy as if
none of the above is happening.

------
olliej
Shocking, who would have thought

------
Proven
Just doin their job and slowly but safely moving towards a well off
retirement...

Why is this surprising or unusual? It doesn't matter to them. Citizens aren't
their customers and can't refuse to fund them. What other outcome can one
rationally expect?

------
Not_a_pizza
Reporting things falsely as a terrorist action IS a terrorist action!!!!!!

------
gjs278
what the EU thinks is irrelevant. I wouldn't respond to a GDPR notice, a
cookie notice, "terrorist content" takedowns. they are free to block my site.
I'm free to never visit their 1984 land. good thing the UK is leaving them.

------
golemotron
I can see why the UK would not be excited to remain.

~~~
sadris
The UK is doing much worse

[https://twitter.com/nickmon1112/status/1116005544236650496?s...](https://twitter.com/nickmon1112/status/1116005544236650496?s=21)

------
macinjosh
The EU is a nightmare. Once the UK leaves and people see they are doing better
it’s going to start a procession of other countries out the door. Too many
regulations and red tape like this make doing business in the EU difficult. I
am slightly annoyed every time a cookie banner blocks my view on a website. To
think some person in Belgium decided that was a good idea and now everyone
online has to deal with it is disturbing.

~~~
munk-a
I don't think that in the best of terms the UK not being part of the EU would
be beneficial to the UK - the way Brexit is happening is definitely going to
hoop them though. They are taking an antagonistic stance against all their
major trading partners and to continue to do business with them they'll end up
needing to follow those regulations anyways.

I am unaware of major cases of regulatory capture in the EU governance and
most regulation proceeding this has been well intentioned - if the cookie
banner is annoying then tell your the site to stop tracking you.

~~~
WillPostForFood
GDPR is effectively massive regulatory capture, benefitting Google and hurting
small ad networks that haven't been able to effectively comply.

[https://cliqz.com/en/magazine/study-google-is-the-biggest-
be...](https://cliqz.com/en/magazine/study-google-is-the-biggest-beneficiary-
of-the-gdpr)

------
gnu8
How are we going to punish the EU for this? The penalty for interfering with
Archive.org must be so severe that even an international entity would never
contemplate doing this again.

------
hirundo
Thank Uncle Sam for the first amendment. Not that this kind of censorship
won't happen in the United States but there are stronger institutional
barriers to it here, so it will take longer.

But it's coming here too and not slowly. For instance five years ago 48 US
Senators voted gut much of the core of the first amendment.
([https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-joint-
re...](https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-joint-
resolution/19/text)) After every terrorist attack we hear how the constitution
is not a suicide note (and therefore the bill of rights is highly contingent).
Pressure to act against (flexibly defined) hate speech is growing particularly
in the young cohort of voters.

In the not distant future I expect hundreds or thousands of US officials to
have the same kind of power that their EU counterparts are seeking here: to
automatically switch off almost any domestic web resource if it hurts the
feelings of an important constituent.

Many of us will fight it, and as in the EU, we'll lose.

