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]
|
First it was Tony Martin the farmer. Then it was Tony Martin the Political Prisoner. Next, Tony Martin the author:
Tony Martin, the farmer jailed for shooting dead a teenage burglar is planning to write an autobiography called My Right To Kill, it was claimed yesterday.
John McVicar, the former armed robber turned author, said he would be editing the book that Martin will write after his release from prison next week.
Is he accepting advance orders? If so, mark me down for a copy right now.
The farmer’s Tory MP, Henry Bellingham, who has consulted him over legislation he wants to frame to give householders greater rights to protect their property, called for the book to be called something “more tactful”.
Alright, how about ‘I Love The Smell of Dead Burglars In The Morning’?
Tony Joynes, the uncle of Fred Barras, said it was “absolutely ridiculous” for Martin to stand to profit from his nephew’s killing. “This autobiography is making money from death,” he said.
Unlike making money from burglary which appears to be perfectly acceptable.
Today is ‘Asylum Day’, at least on the BBC which is devoting a whole series of programmes to analysis and discussion of immigration.
From what I can gather, these programmes will include a discussion on the plight (or otherwise) or real-life immigration cases and members of the public will be invited to join in with their views (which, knowing the BBC, will be carefully edited).
I do not believe that the timing of these broadcasts is accidental. For several years now, the debate about immigration has been growing more intense and widespread, despite (but maybe because of) the entire issue being kept scrupulously off the mainstream political agenda. The last few years, in particular, have witnessed a cavalier and wholly dishonest wielding of the ‘R’ word whenever any public figure has tried to get the matter on the agenda.
Even this attempt by the BBC at public discussion is being frowned upon by the Home Office:
“Asylum raises many complex and emotive issues and we always welcome debate on them – it is important, however, that the debate is rational and measured,” she said.
“The BBC has often covered these issues in considered manner, but we have some serious concerns about some of the content of the BBC’s ‘asylum day’.”
I get the feeling that by claiming that ‘we always welcome debate’, Ms.Hughes is really saying that she doesn’t want any debate at all. Just what is she so frightened of? I hardly think the BBC are going to turn this media event into a platform for extreme nationalism. Does she think that any public airing of these issues is going to open the floodgates to an atavistic army of potential ‘ethnic cleansers’? If so, it betrays just how little confidence our public officials have in the public they preside over.
I take the view that slamming the lid on this issue does not help matters. It has resulted in the fomentation of surly resentment and widespread hostility without such things being countered by intelligent or rational argument. It is another example of why free speech is, in fact, so less harmful than paranoid attempts to prohibit so-called ‘hate speech’.
However, it is because the existance of this resentment is no longer deniable that, I suspect, the BBC feels it is time to grasp some sort of nettle and open up the debate but I equally suspect that they will generate more heat than light. There is an immigration problem in Britain but it is a problem caused by the fact that the regulation is based on the entirely wrong-headed premise that we should only permit ‘political refugees’ to settle here but keep ‘economic migrants’ out (hence ‘immigrants’ are now referred to as ‘asylum-seekers’). Critics of the current system claim that, despite alleged controls, economic migrants are still getting in and that we must ‘tighten up’ the system so that only ‘genuine’ political refugees are offered a home in Britain.
To my mind this is fluorescent absurdity. What we are really saying is that we must shut the door in the face of people like Charles Forte but extend a big, warm welcome to people like Abu Hamza. Surely this should work precisely the other way around?
Of course the idea of letting in only political refugees is intimately related to the welfarist principle which, in my view, is the root of the poison. It is almost an article of faith among the ‘chattering classes’ that native British opposition to immigrants is driven by ‘xenophobia’ and ‘racism’ and is, therefore, all bad. However I disagree with this. I think a lot (maybe most) of the animus towards immigrants is in fact motivated by a wholly justified resentment of foreigners benefitting from a welfare system to which they have never contributed.
The British are not, by nature, an insular or tribal people but they do possess a profound sense of fairness which is currently being sorely tested by an unfair arrangement; an arrangement which wrongly turns away bright, talented contributors and actively encourages dependent, tax-consuming burdens.
It is a high time that there was a more open public debate about immigration because the current system does not need ‘reform’ it needs to be turned on its head. I am not at all confident that the attempts by the BBC to manage this debate will go any way to achieving a desirable and workable outcome.
Once again the xenophobic and unilateralist French government displays its arrogant and dismissive attitude towards the international community:
France is saying goodbye to “email” and hello to “courriel” – the term that the linguistically sensitive French government is now using to refer to electronic mail in official documents.
The culture ministry has announced a ban on the use of the word email in all government ministries, documents, publications or websites, in the latest step to stem an incursion of English words into the French lexicon.
We should protest against this vulgar attempt to pursue their own narrow and selfish national interests. Let’s flood them with e-mails.
Given its intimate association with brutal and murderous ‘ethnic cleansing’ it is entirely understandable that the term ‘population transfer’ raises more than a few hackles.
But it need not necessarily be something to fear. Provided it is thought of in terms of free trade, then I can see a peaceful and voluntary process of population transfer as a beneficial thing.
Indeed, the process already appears to be underway:
A husband and wife in Minnesota, a college student in Georgia, a young executive in New York. Though each has distinct motives for packing up, they agree the United States is growing too conservative and believe Canada offers a more inclusive, less selfish society.
“For me, it’s a no-brainer,” said Mollie Ingebrand, a puppeteer from Minneapolis who plans to go to Vancouver with her lawyer husband and 2-year-old son.
Nor are these itchy feet to be found exclusively in the USA. There are people in Britain too, like this correspondent to the Guardian (concerning the death of Dr.David Kelly), who see Canada as the ‘Golden Medina’:
I think he HAD TO BE RUBBED OUT. He knew too much, where the bodies were buried, so his had to be buried as well. Maybe you’re more honest than we are: the media and the government are co=conspirators here. So good luck. I”m moving to Canada, land of the free.
Some may see this as a tragedy but I see it as an indirect means of slashing public spending. Surely it is preferable for all these guardianistas and tax-consumers to converge upon one country where they can stew in each other’s misery rather than staying where they are, demanding entitlements and whining interminably about the unfairness of it all. Together, they can truly build the kind of society they want to live in.
Of course this process need not, and should not, be a one-way street. Canada has no shortage of ambitious, hard-working people who might see their futures as somewhat sullen in the Land of the Puppeteers. The easiest solution is for them to pack their bags and head off to less stultifying climes where their talent and energy will be both appreciated and rewarded.
In fact, that is what loads of Canadians have been doing:
But every year since 1977, more Canadians have emigrated to the United States than vice versa — the 2001 figures were 5,894 Americans moving north, 30,203 Canadians moving south.
Quite what this means for Canada in the long run I dare not even imagine but for the rest of us it can only be good news. Carry on, I say.
[My thanks to the Brothers Judd for the link and to Peter Cuthbertson for the Guardian letter.]
An urgent memo to the people whose job it is to monitor so-called ‘greenhouse gases’: there appears to be more than enough hot air over Central Europe to keep the Kyoto balloon aloft:
Russia came under pressure from the European Union at the weekend to ratify the Kyoto protocol on greenhouse gases, amid fears that Moscow’s commitment may be wavering.
Yes it is probably ‘wavering’ because the Russians (in common with everybody else) know that the Kyoto Protocol is a bad idea which has been touted as the solution to a non-problem. If the Russians have got any sense they will consign the whole boondoggle to the shredder.
The protocol, which is backed by the EU but opposed by Washington, needs the support of the Russians to reach the threshold of backing required for it to come into force. Although Moscow announced last September that it would ratify, it has so far failed to do so, raising fears that the entire international effort to combat climate change could be stalled.
The keyword here is ‘fear’. Not fear of environmental catastrophes or other such fantastic nonsense, but a (justified) fear among Europe’s political elite that their dirigiste economies will not be able to compete in a truly global marketplace.
Altero Matteoli, the Italian Environment Minister, called for enhanced cooperation with the US and Russia, as well as with emerging economies,such as India and China.
‘Cooperation’ is a euphamism for ‘submission’ and what Mr.Matteoli and his ilk require is for potential competitors to hobble themselves with pointless and damaging regulatory burdens that slap a lid on industrial and technological development. The only other method of halting decline is root-and-branch reform of the Europe’s stagnating economies and that is not going to happen.
Kyoto is not about ‘saving the Earth’ or ‘improving the quality of life’ or any other enviro-mentalist nostrums. Kyoto is a deeply dishonest contrivance; a device for propping up an arcane and protectionist ‘old’ Europe.
I do believe it was Voltaire who came to Britain some time in the 18th Century and described the state of affairs here as ‘aristocracy tempered by rioting’.
Fast forward to the 21st Century. New aristocracy, new rioting:
Hundreds of homeowners rebelling against record council tax increases are facing prison after being summonsed to court for non-payment of their bills as part of a protest which has been dubbed the “Can Pay, Won’t Pay” campaign.
The rebels are angry over the increase in council tax rates that have soared by as much as 40 per cent in the past two years. They have vowed to go to jail rather than pay up.
For non-UK readers, the tax they are referring to is a local property tax which has, indeed, soared to iniquitous levels in the last two years putting an intolerable burden on homeowners with low or fixed incomes.
The current system was brought in to replace the infamous ‘poll tax’ which was excoriated and villified by the left as ‘wicked’ and ‘unfair’. It inspired a campaign of civil disobedience and widespread rioting which, probably more than anything else, did for Margaret Thatcher.
So does anybody think that the ‘caring’ left will get behind this new revolt? I think we all know the answer to that.
“I am not paying. I will not let the bailiffs in and I am prepared to go to jail. I have no family, so if I do end up in prison I’m not going to upset anyone. At my age I don’t feel that it matters if I have a criminal record.”
A brave and nobel expression of sentiment but one which highlights the weakness of such tactics. People with a career to pursue, a business to run or a family to raise cannot afford the risk of incarceration so this is a situation where just a little enforcement will go a long way to quelling the revolt and securing a high degree of compliance.
Also I cannot help but feel that the campaign slogan of ‘Can Pay, Won’t Pay’ (a twist on the anti-poll tax slogan of ‘Can’t Pay, Won’t Pay’) will prove a godsend to the establishment lefties who will be able to demonise the rebels as ‘selfish’ and ‘greedy’.
The rebels do have a website called Is It Fair? but even that, as far as I can tell, misses it’s real target. Calls for a ‘better distribution of central government grants’ are not going to help them or anybody else in the long run.
Monstrous over-taxation is not fair or wise or just or good and while I wholly sympathise with the people who are being rapidly impoverished by them, I fear that their rebellion will do little to improve matters.
Colour me cynical but whenever I hear the word ‘campaign’ these days I generally assume the worst. If it isn’t a bleat for some more state nannying then it’s a demand for some godawful prohibition or other. I realise how jaundiced I sound but I am confident that an examination of the record of these things over the last two decades or so would bear me out.
However, there are always exceptions:
Tony Martin, the farmer jailed for the manslaughter of a burglar, will campaign after his release this month for better legal protection for householders who defend themselves against intruders, his MP said yesterday.
He will also work for changes in the law to stop burglars obtaining legal aid to sue homeowners for compensation if they are injured during a break-in.
There is an old Japanese saying that time is a slow but fair judge. How sweet it would be if Mr.Martin were to finally triumph over those who have wronged him.
In regards to a proposed change in the law it is my view that while the letter of the law should be examined the weight of the problem lies with its application and the assumptions of both the police and the judiciary. It is well past time that those assumptions were challenged and I cannot imagine a more worthy champion than Tony Martin who, as the saying goes, has been there, done that and got the T-shirt (prison issue).
We at the Samizdata will be keeping a close eye on this campaign.
With the whole world apparently in a state of flux and a preponderance of gloomy prognoses, it gives me joy to be able to report just a smidgeon of good news:
Feminists and environmentalists, social pressure groups which usually see eye to eye, have clashed over a shock poster campaign on the streets of Paris and other French cities.
The poster shows a woman’s breast dribbling a dirty, oily fluid. There is no caption or explanation, other than the name of a private, ecological foundation, run by a celebrated television journalist and green campaigner, Nicolas Hulot.
No show-trials or North Korean-style denouncements yet but give it time.
More please and faster.
Image located via D Anghelone
In reverse order, they are:
10. You can trade an old .44 for two new .22s
9. You can keep one handgun at home and have another for when you’re
on the road.
8. If you admire a friend’s handgun, and tell him so, he will probably
let you try it out a few times.
7. Your primary handgun doesn’t mind if you have a backup.
6. Your handgun will stay with you even if you’re out of ammo.
5. A handgun doesn’t take up a lot of closet space.
4. Handguns function normally every day of the month.
3. A handgun doesn’t ask “Do these new grips make me look fat?”
2. A handgun doesn’t mind if you go to sleep after you use it.
AND…..THE NUMBER ONE REASON WHY A HANDGUN IS BETTER THAN A WOMAN….
1. You can buy a silencer for a handgun.
[My thanks to Dr.Chris Tame for posting this to the Libertarian Alliance Forum.]
Never mind the ‘luck of the Irish’, what about the luck of the lawyers? I ask you, has there ever been a group of people so consistently blessed by the fickle finger of fate? Somebody ‘up there’ must like them, that’s for sure.
‘Not so’, I hear you cry? Well, how’s this for proof? No sooner has the legal profession turned its formidable guns on the fast-food industry than, flash-bang-whallop-wham-as if by magic, some learned scientists turn up with a whole bunker full of ammunition:
Women with a high-fat diet may increase their risk of developing breast cancer later in life, say researchers.
A study of more than 13,000 women from Norfolk found that women who ate the most saturated fats – such as those found in chocolate snacks and fast food -were almost twice as likely to develop cancer, compared with those who ate the least.
I am sure it is nothing more than coincidental. Honestly. Really. But, you must surely concede, the timing could not be better.
And is that lucky or what?
The political storm over the government’s ‘Iraq dossier’ seems to have taken a rather macabre twist:
Police searching for the weapons expert suggested by the government as the possible source for a BBC story on Iraq say the body they have found matches Dr David Kelly’s appearance.
In fact, the TV news is now reporting that the recovered body is that of Dr.Kelly.
Let the conspiracy theories commence.
My dear pal Brian Micklethwait was not exaggerating; Tony Blair is, indeed, in deep trouble.
Judging from this article in the Independent the assault on his premiership has just been ratcheted up to a whole new level:
Supporters of the Chancellor, Gordon Brown, have launched an extraordinary attack on Tony Blair, portraying him as a “psychopath” and “psychotic”.
Blair loyalists are furious about a string of hostile articles about the Prime Minister in the current edition of New Statesman magazine, which is owned by Geoffrey Robinson, a former Treasury minister and a close ally of Mr Brown.
Another article in the magazine is headed “What is the point of Tony Blair?”, while a third declares: “The question of Tony Blair’s sanity can no longer be avoided.”
This is pretty grim stuff. It is one thing to disagree with a Prime Minister’s policies but quite another to denounce him as a ‘psychopath’. I cannot recall any serving Premier being publicly subjected to quite such a vicious attack. And from members of his own party, to boot!
Mr.Blair may have been warmed by the adulation he has received in Washington but back here in Britain, he has got serious problems.
|
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.
|
