We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Two minutes to midnight The threat to civil liberties in Britain posted by the Labour government, with laws that make the Patriot Act in the USA seem like a mere trifle, is finally regularly getting the sort of attention it deserves, at least in the Daily Telegraph.
The notion that a politician would dare to try and take powers to deprive people of their liberty without recourse to courts and without even presenting evidence because they ‘know’ that they pose a threat is astonishing. It should also should answer all those people who shrug their shoulders and say “why get worked up about ID cards? We can trust the state.” House arrest without trial and without the ability to confront your accusers… and of British subjects on British soil. And the people who want to do this expect to just be trusted without at any point being required to present proof of a crime or threat to national security. If this is allowed to stand then truly, Britain stands on the brink of something truly dark.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Well said. I have had enough of the usual toadies claiming that we libertarians are scaremongering about ID cards, the Civil Contingencies Bill, the EU Arrest Warrant, erosion of the right to trial by jury, etc. The trend is clear and ominous.
And where does Charles Clarke, the “Father Jack” of British politics, get the idea from? Cuba no less, that paragon of liberty and democracy. We now have the dubious distinction of joining Burma, Tunisia, Vietnam, Cuba, Argentina and Zimbabwe in being a country that allows its own citizens to be place under house arrest without any form of hearing.
“I think this is terrorism without limit,” (Blair).
They are the ones terrorising us, telling us if we don’t do what they want, they “will kill thousands of our citizens”. As Blair said, we face a “new breed of terrorists”, this time in the goverment, they use their daily tales of terror to gain power.
“If this is allowed to stand then truly, Britain stands on the brink of something truly dark.”
Extinction? Won’t be the first time.
France? Well, yes, but you should be used to that by now.
The EU? Absolutly.
No, the real question is will you jump or not, you have ben standing there for ages. Now that Bush is almost done with his farewell tour of Europe, there is just one last question. When the USA pulls out of NATO (NATO died on 9-11, or more precisly when France and Germany refused to honor their Article Five commitments under NATO) and offers individual defense treaties to some of the European nations, will the UK want to be included?
“In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”
–Thomas Jefferson
Ol’ Tommy knew what he was talking about. Do you think maybe it’s time to put your ‘unwritten constitution’ on paper before Brussels shove their written one down your throat?
That leads me to wonder, is this latest outrage within the Law, according to the EU?
Stephinkeln writes:
“No, the real question is will you jump or not, you have ben standing there for ages.”
It would have helped, had Bush kept his mouth shut and not given succour and encouragement to the Europhiles.
US policy since the EU’s inception has been to encourage Britain into the EU. It is a shame that Bush is no different, in this respect, from the meddling bastards who preceded him.
Stehpinkeln:
“When the USA … offers individual defense treaties to some of the European nations, will the UK want to be included?”
We might want to be included, but by then it will be forbidden by the EU Constitution. Britain – to the extent that it still exists then – will simply do as it’s told.
The USA won’t be able to make that offer; there won’t be any European nations. Except maybe Switzerland, Iceland, and Norway.
Julian Taylor writes:
“We now have the dubious distinction of joining Burma, Tunisia, Vietnam, Cuba, Argentina and Zimbabwe in being a country that allows its own citizens to be place under house arrest without any form of hearing.”
What distinguished company!
That all this should have flowed from a bunch of former Left wing student radicals shouldn’t surprise anyone. But I bet it does.
In passing, has anyone read Clarke’s facile ‘justifications’? If this is all we have to fear, then I’m afraid it is the IRA that remains our greatest threat.
It is starting to look, heaven forfend, as if those on the Left who have been bleating that this is all a trumped-up emergency might have a point, after all.
If that is not the case, then the greater breach of faith was to reveal less intelligence material to the public, not more.
Julian Taylor writes:
“We now have the dubious distinction of joining Burma, Tunisia, Vietnam, Cuba, Argentina and Zimbabwe in being a country that allows its own citizens to be place under house arrest without any form of hearing.”
Uhm, we have it in Singapore too… but the targets are invariably commies and leftist nutsos, plus islamic fanatics, so…
Don’t worry about that or the ID card crisis. Work on the tax rate instead. If the tax rate is low enough, the government won’t have enough power to try anything funny anyway.
TWG
One of the MPs standing down at the coming election has made a speech that deserves wider coverage.
The opposition parties are very weak in Britian.
For example on house arrest all the Liberal Democrats and (I believe) the Conservatives are saying is that it should be ordered by a judge rather than by the Home Secretary.
Whilst there are still some decent judges their breed is dying out. Judges in Britain are appointed by the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chancellors are appointed by the Prime Minister.
The last Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine) was appointed because he was a past employer of the Prime Minister and his wife. The present Lord Chancellor (who is even more of a crony) was appointed because he was Mr Blair’s old flat mate and helped out in the corrupt affairs of the London Dome (he is part of the corrupt inner circle close to the Prime Minister who know too much to be really dismissed, no matter how often their corruption is exposed, – a good example is Britain’s current E.U. Commissioner, who had to resign from the government twice because of scandals and is now back in a position of power yet again).
Both Lord Irvine and the present Lord Chancellor have openly stated that they appoint judges on political grounds (for example, how they will interpret the Human Rights Act) rather than on a basis of seniority.
Mr Blair has a plan by which judges in future will be appointed by a committee of the “great and the good” as the saying is in Britain. My guess is that this appointment by committee will be even worse than the present system.
The government and its allies in the media (such as the vile Simon Jenkins – another person closely connected to the London Dome affair) have long been campaigning for the destruction of trial by jury.
For all the faults of juries, trial by judges appointed by one of Mr Blair’s cronies or (worse) by a special committee is a nasty prospect.
Maybe we are again unique in having an opposition party (the Conservatives) that believes it can win an election by simply avoiding any questions over its ‘reign of vacillation’ in the 1990’s.
I thought Simon Jenkins prided himself on his libertarianism? He does seem to let everyone know his views every time he is given a forum.
This isn’t a great deal better than the traditional “AOL – me too!” of blessed Usenet memory, but I am compelled to say just that in respect of the excellent analysis provided by Paul Marks.
Never, since we lopped the head off an errant king, has this country been governed by such blatant patronage and corruption.
Day by day, Blair’s rule is unfolding as a nightmare for which, if there were any justice in this land, he would, one day, be held fully accountable.
We still have the Tower, after all….
GCooper, as a general idea, the EU has somthing going for it. Economy of scale for one thing. The EU that the US hoped to see is not the one we are going to get (maybe). It’s sort of like the first marriage, finding there are a few little details that ‘sweet thing’ glossed over.
The thinking on this side of the pond among the realists is that there will be no Europe by the end of the century. Declining birthrates, the basic economic flaws of a welfare state and the hords of muslims drawn by that welfare state will be the end of europe as a seperate enity. It will become the west part of Asia, with no seperate identity that distinguishes it from the rest of Asia. Europe will have to have some a common language. It might be english, since english (or at least the american version) is rapidly becoming the global lanugage. I’m thinking it will be arabic.
That is because introducing Democracy to the middle east and using it to smooth off the rough edges of Islam might not be the smartest thing the USA has ever done. We might have created a monster.
But that’s OK, it will eat Europe first, and that will give America time to build up our Navy and get the Latino’s organized.
“The notion that a politician would dare to try and take powers to deprive people of their liberty without recourse to courts and without even presenting evidence because they ‘know’ that they pose a threat is astonishing.”
Short or selective memories! Not at all astonishing, nor even much of an innovation in British justice.
The 1974 Prevention of Terrorism Act allowed for the expulsion of Irish people, including British subjects from Northern Ireland, from Great Britain to Ireland (North or South) merely on the order of the Home Secretary with no right of recourse to the courts.
I think Americans will be speaking Spanish long before Brits are speaking Arabic.
Sadly for this thesis, economic pressures and conflicting strategic needs mean the USN is going to get smaller rather than larger (vide recent plans to scale back vessel procurement because the money simply isn’t there any more).
EG