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]
|
Is this really the best way to combat negative stereotyping?
Britain could face the threat of two million home-grown Islamic terrorists, says a senior Muslim leader.
Muhammad Abdul Bari, the secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, fears that continued negative attitudes towards people of his faith could provoke a vast and angry backlash.
“There are a few bad apples in the Muslim community who are doing terrible acts and we want to root them out,” Dr Bari told The Sunday Telegraph.
“But some police officers and sections of the media are demonising Muslims, treating them as if they’re all terrorists — and that encourages other people to do the same.
“If that demonisation continues, then Britain will have to deal with two million Muslim terrorists — 700,000 of them in London,” he said. “If you attack a whole community, it becomes despondent and aggressive.”
So, for those people who think that all Muslims are terrorists, Dr. Bari’s message is: you were right all along. You are not frothing, paranoid Islamophobic bigots but astute judges of character. And by the by, I don’t know what ‘media’ Dr. Bari has been exposed to but if it the same press that I have reading then I think he will find that, when it comes to terrorist atrocities, the members of the British Fourth Estate have been tripping over each other in the headlong dash to blame everyone and anyone except Muslims.
But, quibbles aside, I am inclined to be charitable and assume that Dr. Bari sincerely wishes to repair damaged community relations and foster a mutual spirit of tolerance. However, threatening what is tantamount to civil war is unlikely to achieve such a laudable objective.
Dr. Bari is described as a “senior Muslim leader” so I suppose that makes him a representative. I only hope that he is not representative.
The other day, my article about the antics of footballers and the shifting balance of power between players and clubs prompted one or two commenters to argue that this shows that market economics and sport do not always mix. The argument, so it goes, is that a sport like football or motor racing needs to operate an almost egalitarian policy when it comes to limiting the power of any participant, because otherwise the most powerful clubs and participants will dominate a sport so much that they destroy the very competition that makes sport enjoyable. Example: the current dominance in the English Premier League of Chelsea, which is now backed by the vast and dubiously-acquired oil wealth of its Russian owner. Another example: Ferrari and its dominance for nearly a decade of Formula One motor sport.
But while such observations have merit, it ignores the fact that sporting institutions like the Football League or Formula 1, the America’s Cup yachting race or whatever are voluntary associations of likeminded people who want to create a set of rules in order for people to have, well, fun. Those voluntary bodies can change their own rules if a participant’s behavioural dominance starts to squeeze the very competition such institutions hold. People effectively choose to submit to rules, just as members of a symphony orchestra voluntarily submit to the dictates of a conductor. In an open society such as ours, we get a profusion of autonomous institutions set up for the purpose of say, staging sports competitions where there are tight rules on behaviour of the participants but where such participants are free to leave.
I personally think that if, say, Chelsea tried to squash all competition beyond a certain point, it could drain interest out of the sport and possibly force the league officials to cap things like the use of foreign players and perhaps even limit the size of a squad that any club can have. And that would be “autocratic” of the league but also no assault on the “freedom” of Chelsea since that club draws is raison d’etre from being a club participating in an intensely rule-bound voluntary association.
Also, if a sport gets bent out of shape and the interest wanes, there are things like “breakaway leagues” or new competitions designed to revive interest. The case of motor sport is instructive: in the last few years, there has been a rising chorus of criticism that F1 motor racing is dull, unglamorous and market-driven (and although no-one will admit this, also very safe). So you get a rise in interest in alternatives, such as rallying, motorcycling, saloon car racing, classic racing, revival meetings, and so forth.
There seems to be a sort of parabola of development in sports. As technical excellence and physical fitness of players increases, some sports can reach a sort of stalemate end-point (Brian Micklethwait made this point about squash and the World Cup soccer tournament recently). But so long as sport remains outside the maw of the state and people can arrange their own events, there is no reason why people who become bored by the spectacle of spoiled-brat soccer stars or processional motor racing cannot do something about it.
Whilst the media is interested in the Labour leadership struggle (the issue of when statist Blair is going and whether he is going to be replaced by statist Brown or statist Reid or statist someone else), my interest has been directed towards the latest antics of the ruling group within the Conservative party.
A couple of days ago some of Mr David Cameron’s senior people (Oliver Letwin, David W. and so on) came out with a ‘turning point’ for the Conservative party, a major policy matter. This was to state that the Conservative party would commit itself to much more taxpayer’s money for the ‘public services’ (i.e. the government education, health and welfare programmes). The “traditional Conservative hostility” to such things was wrong (although the idea that the Mrs Thatcher cut government spending is a myth – in reality its growth was just restrained, but even that is now considered a crime against humanity). Indeed it is “part of being human” to support government spending increases without limit – so anti-government types may look human, but we are really not human at all. Mr Cameron himself took time out from his trip to India to denounce the idea of tax cuts in an interview with BBC radio.
Of course Mr Cameron may be in India to learn how to create an even bigger budget deficit than Britain already has (rather than just go and try and get some reflected glory from visiting the tomb of Gandhi – much in the way as he tried to get some reflected glory from the Nelson Mandela stunt last month), but it would be nice if he noted that India has far lower taxes than Britain has (total taxes – as a percentage of the economy) which is one of the basic reasons that its economic growth is faster.
If India tried to have the level of government ‘public services’ spending that Mr Cameron and his people would suggest (even as a percentage of the economy) its government deficit would be wildly greater than it already is – and the economy would collapse (which, given how poor many Indians already are, would mean starvation).
But then Mr Cameron does not want economic growth, he wants economic “stability” – but then he does want economic growth because he wants to “share the proceeds” of it, in order to fight “social injustices” and support the cause of “social justice”. Not just in Britain – but by providing government aid to all the poor countries of the world (far more than this mean Labour government is giving). → Continue reading: Cameron’s ‘Conservatives’ – the madness continues
A British evangelical Christian, Stephen Green, has been charged with using ‘threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour’ after he handed out leaflet contained Biblical quotes critical of homosexuality at a homosexual event in Wales. The article indicates neither he nor his leaflets were abusive or threatening, just that they pointed out that the Bible states that homosexuality is a sin and so it urged homosexuals to ‘repent’ and stop sinning.
What caught my eye about this case was…
Several thousand people attended the event, which included a gay rugby tournament and a ‘top gayer motor show’, and which was addressed on the importance of tolerance by Liberal Democrat council chief Rodney Berman.
So as Rodney Berman is such a strong supporter of tolerance, presumably he will soon also be arguing for Mr. Green’s right to be tolerated for his views and behaviour. After all, tolerance does not imply acceptance or approval and so even if Mr. Green calls for gays to stop being gay (i.e. he does not approve of their sexual behaviour and wishes to convince them to act differently), unless there is more to this story unreported, there seems no evidence Mr. Green does not tolerate gays. Yet some homosexuals who disapprove of Mr. Green’s views of their behaviour are clearly unwilling to return the favour and tolerate him. They called for the law (i.e. force) to be used to prevent him peaceably expressing himself.
As the LibDems pride themselves on supporting (non-economic) liberty, will they come to Mr. Green’s defence and demand tolerance for everyone? I wonder what Mr. Berman has to say on this matter.
The creation of a super-democratic body created by central government called the Standards Board for England, which can exclude members of a local council who were elected on a specific issue platform because ‘their minds are already made up’ has been described in the Telegraph as ‘hampering democracy’. This is rather like saying having your head cut off ‘hampers thinking’… true but more than a tad misleading. British understatement is alive and well it seems.
The Standards Board’s function is to prevent single issue politics by simply disallowing a ‘difficult’ elected councillor from doing what they were elected to do so ‘hampering’ democracy is not an unintended consequence, it is what the Standards Board for England does.
Face it, the whole point of the Standards Board of England is to prevent councillors who are elected on the basis of views unpopular with the establishment from being allowed to disrupt business as usual by asking difficult questions and proving resistant to being pressured by established political groupings.
So let us call the Standard Board for England and their network of ‘ethical standards officers’ what they actually are: Commissars.
At least 14 people were arrested on Friday night in south London as part of an anti-terror operation by police. Developing…
The ‘Conservative’ party in Britain continues to provide evidence for my theory that a vote for Dave Cameron is a vote for 99% continuity with the policies of New Labour. All they do is argue over which party is better at managing the introduction of new regulations and deciding which form confiscatory taxes should take. One party says “What about the environment?” and the other party replies “What about the poor?” Which party takes which position at any given time is an entirely cyclical rather than intellectual matter.
So if you like what Britain is today, why not stick with New Labour? But if you hate the extraordinary erosion of civil liberties, the arrogant yet ignorant statism, the pandering populism… why vote for a different party which is in overwhelming ideological agreement with New Labour and even apes them stylistically?
At least voting LibDem would be a vote for people who have some truly different policies regarding non-economic civil liberties… and a vote for the UKIP really is a vote for throwing a large spanner into the machinery of state (although I am not an uncritical fan of UKIP, they are the only party I would even consider voting for with any pleasure).
If the Tory party wins the next election, I think that is it for the UK for many years to come. If Dave Cameron gets into Downing Street that will have proven that the radical centre which constitutes ‘Blairism’, a populist authoritarianism which is starting to adopt totalitarian positions, is the only viable politics in Britain. That would validate Dave Cameron’s decision to jettison every last vestige of Thatcher’s pro-capitalist legacy and unless the Tory Party as it currently exist is destroyed by yet another election loss, we will see the move towards what might as well be a one party state become an entrenched reality.
Cameron delendus est.
The Labour Party under Tony Blair becomes ever more totalitarian, registering children so that the state can decide how to regulate theit lives and threatening to ‘intervene’ in people’s lives to prevent a child from becoming anti-social before it is born. It will do this by offering state ‘help’ to ‘underprivileged’ *(as preposterous an expression as has even been contrived) families, with the threat of force if the state’s ‘help’ is not accepted.
Logically the next step will be a state enforced eugenics programme to prevent the birth of ‘anti-social children’. You think I am joking? I assure you I am not. Members of the media class have occasionally called for eugenics that without causing one tenth of the outrage amongst the chattering classes that would be caused by, say, questioning the morality of the welfare state. As long as Tony Blair and his ideological clones in the Tory Party refuse to accept that the decay of British society is a direct consequence of replacing natural social mechanisms with state regulations (i.e. the regulated welfare state) radically interventionist measures are inevitable. They are left with increasingly extreme and totalitarian ‘solutions’ to the problems they have created because the true causes, and therefore the actual solutions, are off limits not just from political action but even from discussion.
An analogue would be the officers in command of a ship attempting to come up with a method of effective navigation but refusing to allow even the possibility that the world may be a sphere rather than flat.
And as neither Labour nor the ‘Conservatives’ will countenance even the discussion of anything that might involve a significant rollback of the regulatory welfare state, people who think things like force backed eugenics could not happen in Britain are quite simply deluding themselves. Logically I cannot see how that will not happen in the quite forseeable future given what is being said on high.
I judge that the greenslime must be growing in confidence, since they are no longer going to the bother of trying to disguise their true colours:
Thirty-eight campaigners have been arrested during a “mass day of action” against carbon emissions at Britain’s largest coal-fired power station.
Hundreds of demonstrators were hoping to disrupt operations at Drax Power Station in North Yorkshire.
Offences included criminal damage, aggravated trespass and possession of offensive weapons.
One is obliged these days to read BBC reports in the same manner as Cold War warriors read Pravda. Hence we know that the term “campaigners” means a marxoid rent-a-mob of the Great Unwashed and the term “lively protests” (which appears elsewhere on the page) means rioting.
The “campaigners” have pitched tents (quite literally) in a muddy field next to the power station which, despite the sanctimonious rejection of all things modern, does have a website here. If you can be bothered to wade waist-deep through all the turgid, infantile agitprop, there are one or two chortles to be had, such as from this semi-literate gem:
Commercial policy- basically no activity that is primarily about profit, though there is NGOs there who is happy to get new members/subscriptions.
Anyway, it is all for the good I say. Let’s face it we all know who they are, we all know what they are and we all know what they really, really want. If battle is to be joined then it is best joined sooner rather than later.
Fanatical ideologies contain within them the seeds of their own destruction for the members of the vanguard must continually prove their own purity of thought and fidelity to the cause. In doing so, they end up turning on each other:
London’s mayor has accused the head of the UK’s race watchdog of “pandering to the right” so much that “soon he’ll be joining the BNP”.
Ken Livingstone said Trevor Phillips had “an absolutely disgraceful record” at the Commission for Racial Equality.
He accused Mr Philips of trying to “move the race agenda away from a celebration of multiculturalism”.
The CRE said Mr Phillips’ views on multiculturalism had been “well-documented” and “well-supported”.
Revolutions eat their own children and ruling classes feast on themselves.
Keith Richards to Manager: “Hey, man, I want a bathtub full of tequila, a bevy of teenage groupie nymphos, a month’s supply of uncut Turkish smack and….no, better leave it at that“.
Rolling Stones guitarist Keith Richards may have flouted Scotland’s smoking ban when he played to thousands of fans at Glasgow’s Hampden Park.
The city council confirmed it was investigating reports that he smoked on stage throughout the gig on Friday.
Neil Rafferty, from the Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco (Forest), said: “This is yet another way in which the smoking ban makes Scotland look ridiculous”.
A spokesman for the Scottish Parliament strongly refuted claims that Scotland was looking ridiculous but did announce that, henceforth, Scottish smoked salmon would have to be sold as Scottish ‘treated’ salmon in order to avoid sending out the wrong message.
Mr Christopher Booker, of the Sunday Telegraph newspaper, has been writing articles for the last year or so showing that there is no freedom of speech for local councillors in Britain.
Under the regulations introduced by the Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott a local councillor can be tossed out of the council and disqualified from being a councillor for years (in defiance of the voters) for such crimes as being “rude and demeaning to a senior officer”, “bringing the council into disrepute” (by attacking it – not by being involved in corrupt activities), trying to “reopen closed issues” (closed by the powers-that-be of course) and being “generally malicious”.
This is all on top of the Prescott principle that a councillor should not be allowed to speak about an issue he has an ‘interest’ in. This is not a matter of saying “I have a financial interest in such and such a judgement being made by the council…” A person may not be allowed to speak even if he clearly states what his financial interest is – or even if he has no financial interest at all. This is because an interest has been defined as including previous campaigns against a project or policy of the council.
Oddly enough only councilors who are against local government judgements that are in line with national government policy tend to get hit by these regulations. If one has campaigned against a government project one can be barred from speaking against it as a councillor, but if one has supported the project (or even been involved in drawing it up – for example in one of the government’s ‘Regional’ structures) one is rather less likely to be barred from speaking. The cases are decided by the ‘Standards Board for England’ – no judgement by a jury of one’s peers of course. Any councillor who tries to expose how local government officers and national government directives make ‘local democracy’ a farce can simply be removed from the council and barred for standing for election for X number of years.
The Prescott regulations are clearly not something that John Prescott happened to think of – they are an experiment that will later be more widely applied (already our old friends in the European Union are thinking about how to exclude from elections people who do not accept their ‘values and principles’).
When I have touched on all this in the past, some people have said “take the rascals to court!” → Continue reading: No freedom of speech for local councillors in Britain
|
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.
|
