Who's the Daddy Now? The Revolutionary Balance of Power

It's now undeniable that universal access to information via the internet played a crucial role in the revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt and other countries. Global opinion is now formed and refined online, and can probably be quantified. If it had been over the last two weeks, it is fairly clear that the body of world opinion was against Moamar Gadaffi, for the Libyan people (as it was for the people of Egypt and Tunisia) and for some kind of international support for the Libyan revolution.
It is also clear that support in the form of UN 1973 relied on  Russian and Chinese abstentions, and that this could not have happened any sooner than the middle of last week. The conversion of the Russians and Chinese, alongside that of the Arab League, is being accredited to superior diplomacy. In fact it was the result of something much more interesting and basic. What we have been witnessing is the workings of a fine shift in the way power is directed, and political energy converted into action. 
China and Russia almost always veto any UN action against any regime. Not so much on principle, but largely out of self-preservation. These regimes cannot allow their people to have aspirations to human rights above their station, and need to pose as stout opponents of western imperialism to inspire patriotic loyalty. So while Gadaffi was just another dictator among many, clinging on clumsily but quietly, Moscow and Beijing had no difficulty in shelving any action in the usual way. He had to make himself into a monster to make enough difference to Russian and Chinese domestic opinion for their leaders to be able to afford to support 1973.
When this happened, the balance of world opinion, between the global internet on the one side, and domestic Russian and Chinese opinion on the other, tipped in favour saving Bengazi (at least) from slaughter. As well as kick-starting the Jasmine Revolution, the internet has secured its advance. But more significantly, the last month has shown just how much the old certainties are reversed. David Cameron was not the leader of the defence of Libya, he was being led. He knew what the general public were saying and had to respond in kind. On this issue, he is doing what the internet told him to do. And if role-reversal is good enough for politicians, it's good enough for bankers and Coca Cola too. Who's between the shafts of the cart now? Who's the Daddy now?
As for the future of Libya, the Jeremiahs are wrong. Firstly, there will be no 'stalemate'. Once Misratah is liberated, as it will be (better late than never) Gadaffi will have to retreat to Tripoli and his inevitable fate. The libyan people will drive him there, then rise up to topple him and his few remaining puppets.
Secondly, there will be no divide between east and west, in spite of all the legendary 'tribalism' said to infest the country and make democracy there a genetic impossibility. There may well be a miniature Northern Ireland left as a legacy of the bloodshed, as there was as a result of Britain's transition from feudalism to a form of democracy. We managed OK, eventually.

Stuff the Pope and the Mullahs and the Rabbis, Women Now have Abortion on Demand via The Internet..

"Women living in countries where abortion is restricted - including Northern Ireland - are using the internet to buy medication enabling them to perform an abortion at home, it emerged today.A medical study found more than one in 10 customers on one of the most well-known websites needed a surgical procedure after taking the medication.Women in more than 70 countries, including Northern Ireland, have used the internet site Women on Web to purchase the drugs for £55 a time. "

So much for the sovereignty of elected government.
The women in NI are obviously committing a prosecutable offence, so have any been prosecuted? And if they are criminals, how are they going to be detected? The same way that China manages its' dissidents?
Of course, this does mean that if women in primitive regimes can get hold of chemical abortions online, they can also get hold of almost any kind of contraception. So there shouldn't really be any need for RU486 and the rest.
The only difference is that contraception is a constant expense, whereas abortion is £55 a time. And while there are always accidental pregnancies, the main problem are the arrogant, punitive administrations which pander to one of the various oppressive theologies or other. Now they can all kiss the arse of any woman with the price of the drugs and access to a computer.
But that's breaking a democratically determined law. So what happens next?
The internet has, in this case, enabled women to ignore the laws of the government elected to make them. So what is the point of McGuinness And Paisley placating the Pope if women can simply go around the barrier of state? If the country women live in says they shall not have abortions, and they contrive to have them, they are breaking the law, and there's nothing the offended legislature can do other than tell Google to block all traffic to sites offering this type of help.
Is this going to happen? Or are backward states which refuse women the freedom of their own bodies going to have to be dragged into the C20th, and realise they are fighting a losing battle against the power of the world wide web. Another triumph for the power of individual global communications. A repeat, in fact, of each technological advance which has wrung slices of liberty from the religious powers of the day.
As for the reports of the risks, the women taking them are perfectly aware of the risks they face in childbirth, and are making their choice between the two. A choice denied them by their governments.
Will this mean that governments are now under more incentive to respond to the new power of their electorate to ignore the commands of the state and follow their own morality? And if so, what sort of society will be created?
 Are we beginning to sit in the driver seat with our politicians between the shafts of the cart at last?
‘The Internet may fairly be regarded’, wrote one of the judges involved in the case, ‘as a never-ending worldwide conversation. The Government may not, through the CDA, interrupt that conversation. As the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed, the Internet deserves the highest protection from governmental intrusion’.
The Architecture of Freedom -- and of its enemies John Naughton