Tuesday
(0)Mark Steyn comments here on the absurdity of trying to legislate to make our charming youth appear less menacing by stopping them from wearing hooded tracksuit tops of the sort familiar in any major city. As he goes on to write, the attempt by the government to try and regulate this sort of thing suggests the government has a terrible naivety about the ability of the State to improve things like manners and standards of conduct by brute force of law:
But respect is a two-way street, and two-way streets are increasingly rare in British town centres. The idea that the national government can legislate respect is a large part of the reason why there isn't any. Almost every act of the social democratic state says: don't worry, you're not responsible, leave it to us, we know best. The social democratic state is, in that sense, profoundly anti-social and ultimately anti-democratic.
As Steyn points out, the habit of wearing hoods, large baseball caps and the like is in part a rebellion against the gazillions of CCTV cameras which now festoon so many of our town centres, shopping malls, public buildings and even, so the government hopes, our countryside. The law of Unintended Consequences, as Steyn says, applies. If you treat the populace like kids being minded by nannies in a creche, some of them will try and hide from nanny the best way they can. Of course, there is no reason why owners of private premises cannot enforce dress codes, as happens in pubs which ban people from wearing soccer shirts etc. However fair or unfair, owners should be allowed to insist on the dress code and behaviour they deem fit.
Perhaps this government might try to treat us like reasonably intelligent adults. You never know, the habit might catch on.
Quite. An obsession with respec' (meaning servile compliance), and keenness to use arbitrary force to exact it, is the mark of gangsters through the years. The Government is adopting and reinforcing that culture, not undermining it.
Posted by Guy Herbert at May 17, 2005 06:26 PM
I'm not sure what the fuss is about here. Nobody is proposing banning this kind of dress entirely. A shopping centre in Kent, which is not public property, has banned it, something for which Blair has expressed support, but that's all.
Posted by Yusuf Smith at May 17, 2005 06:54 PM
Blair shouldn't be getting involved in commenting on company policy of private companies - but then he cannot keep his nose out of anything. He thinks the world wants his thoughts on everything. He even said, the other day, "Look! I can't bring up other people's children for them!"
I have long held that he is insane.
And yes, Guy Herbert, enforcing respec' is abhorrent and is exactly the kind of shallow, showy idiocy I would predict would appeal to an empty git like Blair.
Posted by Verity at May 17, 2005 08:05 PM
Has anyone any idea of what Blair means by 'respect'?
If he means 'civilised behaviour' I'll take some notice when someone, anyone, mentions the reversal of 50 years of liberal dogma.
Posted by Pete_London at May 17, 2005 10:26 PM
Pete_London, Blair can't even count up to 50, never mind spell 'liberal dogma'. He big up respec', man, but he dissin' all dat Tory crew, innit? Wo' kine respec' dat, man?
Posted by Verity at May 18, 2005 12:03 AM
Talking of which Verity, have you seen former Conservative leader Ian Duncan Smith's attempt to belittle Blair - Tony Blair - The Wilderness Years, in a future where, "He's lost the leadership of the Labour party, his marriage is over, and he believes he has superhuman powers. He also talks to a teddy bear."
Posted by Julian Taylor at May 18, 2005 01:53 AM
Surely forcing youths to sweep back their hoodies is disrespectful against their religion (the religion of "da' hood")? You can't have it both ways UK parliament!!
Posted by danieru at May 18, 2005 02:55 AM
He big up respec', man, but he dissin' all dat Tory crew, innit? Wo' kine respec' dat, man?
Iz it coz they's blec?
Posted by James at May 18, 2005 03:16 AM
"Perhaps this government might try to treat us like reasonably intelligent adults. You never know, the habit might catch on."
Therein, of course, lies the proverbial rub. If our self-annointed minders were to actually treat us as adults, and more of us were to start asserting that status, a great many of them might find themselves searching for new employment, possibly even of some productive sort. Pols here in the states sometimes refer to this unwelcome situation as "the dreaded private sector".
Posted by Strophyx at May 18, 2005 04:27 AM
We need a Fatawa so the Jihadists can start blowing up video cams. I was chatting wid sum folks and tol dem 'bout bug spray on the lens to hose da cam and one of tda brothers tol me a laser pointer will throw dem out of focus. Anybody else hear dat? I don't know of any survailance cameras around here dat don't hab bullet holes in dem, so dere is no way for me to experiment. What don't one of you boyos give it a try and let us know.
Posted by Stehpinkeln at May 18, 2005 06:59 AM
Verity said:
Blair shouldn't be getting involved in commenting on company policy of private companies - but then he cannot keep his nose out of anything. He thinks the world wants his thoughts on everything. He even said, the other day, "Look! I can't bring up other people's children for them!"
I can't help but imagine there must have been a "but..." after that particular quote.
Posted by .david at May 18, 2005 08:57 AM
Malls are private spaces so they can demand all sorts of dress codes etc. I was thrown out of one once for taking photos ( I wasn't wearing a baseball cap OR a hoodie !). " Back in the day " ( read late 80's)where I live it was the suit wearing types who would come out of the pub drunk and beat the tar out of passersby.
Now they all wear baseball caps so we have no need to be afraid of office workers et al.
Ban burburry everywhere I say.
Posted by gravid at May 18, 2005 09:59 AM
Bluewater forgot to mention the new 3-piece suit of thug attire.
That is baseball cap + hoodie + bandana across your face.
The combination of all three means you end up showing about as much flesh as a Muslim woman wearing hijab plus niqab.
It's very threatening, and really means you have no idea of the identity of the person underneath, which is clearly the intention. Popular down here in Lambeth, needless to say.
Posted by Ambrose at May 18, 2005 12:05 PM
Wouldn't that be "boys in the bonnet" if it is to be British style?
Posted by triticale at May 20, 2005 12:31 AM
Car terminology.
Hood (us)= Bonnet (uk)
Trunk (us)=Boot (uk)
Gas (us)= Brown'sBigBonanza (uk)
Posted by zmollusc at May 20, 2005 08:29 AM
Hmmm ... boys in the bonnet putting the trunk in ...
It has a certain transatlantic ring to it, doesn't it ?
I originally was going to observe that the *last* thing needed is for the habit to catch on ...
I can see it now ... a Burberry wimple ?
Posted by Alasdair at May 21, 2005 12:06 AM
The point that a lot of people have missed is the breathtaking chutzpah of Blair's denunciation of hoodies and whining about respect: It was w*nky left lawyers of the Blair variety who began the process of licensing bad behaviour in the first place. A liberal economy (unrestricted cultural imperialism- hate to say it, but at least the French put up a fight) plus the rancour of the US race-relations industry imported via the dominant media plus a liberal state and what do you end up with: the petty nastiness and sullen oafishness that is considered the ne plus ultra of street cred today.
Steyn's right of course: there's no way on God's green earth any of this legislation will work but I think they know that and they're spinning up indignation at anti-social behaviour because they want the hate-speech laws and the bloody ID card laws.
Posted by Airbrushed by the Commissars at May 23, 2005 05:16 PM
The point that a lot of people have missed is the breathtaking chutzpah of Blair's denunciation of hoodies and whining about respect: It was w*nky left lawyers of the Blair variety who began the process of licensing bad behaviour in the first place. A liberal economy (unrestricted cultural imperialism- hate to say it, but at least the French put up a fight) plus the rancour of the US race-relations industry imported via the dominant media plus a liberal state and what do you end up with: the petty nastiness and sullen oafishness that is considered the ne plus ultra of street cred today.
Steyn's right of course: there's no way on God's green earth any of this legislation will work but I think they know that and they're spinning up indignation at anti-social behaviour because they want the hate-speech laws and the bloody ID card laws.
Posted by Airbrushed by the Commissars at May 23, 2005 05:17 PM
The point that a lot of people have missed is the breathtaking chutzpah of Blair's denunciation of hoodies and whining about respect: It was w*nky left lawyers of the Blair variety who began the process of licensing bad behaviour in the first place. A liberal economy (unrestricted cultural imperialism- hate to say it, but at least the French put up a fight) plus the rancour of the US race-relations industry imported via the dominant media plus a liberal state and what do you end up with: the petty nastiness and sullen oafishness that is considered the ne plus ultra of street cred today.
Steyn's right of course: there's no way on God's green earth any of this legislation will work but I think they know that and they're spinning up indignation at anti-social behaviour because they want the hate-speech laws and the bloody ID card laws.
Posted by Airbrushed by the Commissars at May 23, 2005 05:18 PM
For hoodies in malls, and related implications for society, have you read: www.catallus.freeserve.co.uk/security.htm? Or any of the stories on that site?
Posted by woolfy at May 31, 2005 12:20 PM
