A sample text widget
Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis
euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.
Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan.
Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem,
suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.
|
We noted here earlier the controversial proposed appointment of a new Director of Public Prosecutions. Today’s Telegraph reports that Britain’s Conservative Opposition are continuing to making an issue of this:
The appointment of one of Cherie Blair’s “cronies” as the new Director of Public Prosecutions is a “matter of deepest concern” because of his work on terrorist cases, Michael Howard, the shadow chancellor, said yesterday.
Mr Howard suggested that Ken Macdonald was not fit to serve as the country’s top prosecutor because of his views on the motives of those charged with terrorism.
Mr Howard, a QC, singled out Mr Macdonald’s website at Matrix Chambers, where Mrs Blair works as a public law barrister, and his use of the phrase “political violence”.
A website? Yes, this one.
The website detailing Mr Macdonald’s work as a criminal lawyer says: “He is very well known for his work in cases where serious allegations of political violence are made against Irish republicans, Sikhs, Palestinians and Islamists. He is especially interested in fair trial issues arising out of recent anti-terrorist legislation in Britain and abroad.”
Although Mr Howard stopped short of suggesting that Mr Macdonald was sympathetic to the cause of terrorist groups, he said the concept of “political violence” was not recognised under English law.
This is an argument that will presumably divide White Rose readers along political lines. But it is very White-Rose-relevant, as I’ve been saying of a number of stories here.
Howard admits that if Macdonald hadn’t had that Blair connection he wouldn’t be making so much fuss. Fair enough. Neither would I. As it is, says Howard, the appointment should be closely scrutinised. Here’s what is probably Howard’s most telling punch:
“If you engage in that kind of scrutiny, you discover that this is a man who has no experience of prosecution at all. He’s never prosecuted a single significant case in his career.
If you want to get stuck into Michael Howard, the Telegraph also supplies the link to his website.
In the factory where I work we have been given magnetic swipecards to enter and exit the factory through the new security gates. The main point of these security gates is to protect the car park, which was targeted by a gang of thieves late last year. They do a good job- it’s going to take a fair effort to get in the carpark now. The carpark is also monitered by a security camera.
Some of the lads have made joking remarks to the effect that we are now ‘inside’; as if it was a prison environment, but no one really objects, as we all want our cars to be there and in one piece when we finish our shifts.
Some other employers though use far more extensive surveillance in their working areas. I used to work in an internet datacentre, and the company that operated it had security cameras operating over every part of the centre where our customers might go. These cameras recorded everything on magnetic tape. Part of my job in the Network Operations Center was to monitor these cameras for anything that might be a security breach.
There was one camera that covered the front door to our building which faced the street. This was by far the most interesting camera, as the datacentre was just around the corner from Crown Casino, a huge entertainment complex in Melbourne. Nothing livened up a dull nightshift as watching throngs of drunks, strays and vagabonds doing their thing at 5am.
There was one time, when I was safely on dayshift as it was, when the cameras recorded an assault right outside our building. As I remember it, the fellow who was on shift called the police and volunteered the tape to help identify the assailant.
This raises the issue of privacy. While it might be reasonable to help the police in dealing with a criminal offence, there were other times and other scenes that, while not criminal, might well have been of interest to a wider viewing audience, and would have been of great embarrassment to the participants, who were not aware of the well hidden camera.
Private companies operate transport services and many sports stadiums have cameras strategically placed to film the public. I wonder about what rights and obligations these private entities have to protect the privacy of the people that they film.
I think that Big Brother is big enough and doesn’t need any little helpers.
The attitude of most people like me, who live in London, is that civil liberties are only of interest at present if they will blow very cold air at you. Nevertheless, I can just about sit long enough next my computer (equals fan heater) to tell you that these people (“Unpersons – a British group-blog focusing primarily on UK, EU and Anglosphere affairs from a free-market laissez faire perspective” – they got started last month) seem like they are going to be good and of interest on the civil liberties front. They have a “civil liberties” category, and if you click on that you get good stuff, although of course everything they say won’t suit everyone here (e.g. guns etc.).
Their latest is a discussion of how a DNA database of spit spat at British Railway staff is being talked about.
“Ashcroft is on a binge”, says South Knox Bubba.
This “Victory Act” (who comes up with this stuff? is it induced by copious applications of Crisco to the brain?) slipped through the media’s All Kobe All Arnold All The Time cracks, as did Herr Ashcroft’s new sentencing guidelines directives for prosecutors.
Crisco? Kobe? Arnold I’ve heard of. And Ashcroft, of course. The links, both to TalkLeft, are both worth following.
I’m telling you, this chipping away at the Constitution and civil liberties is going to cost the GOP some votes.
And then there’s another link to this guy (a blogspotter) and you have to scroll down to the bits that matter, both called “Will it ever stop?” and dated Wed Aug 6 and Fri Aug 8.
Whilst The Philosophical Cowboy may indeed be too paranoid about this, there are also 100% legitimate civil liberties issues involved, even without the slippery slope concerns:
“Iain Murray has more on an on-going natural justice train-wreck: basically, the government has found it can’t define abuse precisely enough for legislative purposes, so, in the words of the head of the Family Planning association, they’re going to criminalise
“behaviour [ defined so broadly that it] could include common petting activities such as kissing and touching, through to full sexual intercourse…. This kind of sexual exploration is completely normal and an important part of adolescent development. If the bill is passed without any amendments, such activity could carry a prison sentence of up to five years.””. I.e. any “sexual activity” by anyone under 16, even with their peers, is illegal.
“”The criminal law has a very poor record for influencing consenting sexual behaviour,” she said. “The bill devalues true abuse from desired sexual activity by failing to distinguish the two.”
The Home Office accepted Ms Weyman’s interpretation of the bill, but said there was no plan to change it.”
Now, as I say, I’m not normally paranoid. But this strikes me as a gift to a regime, sorry, government (“regime” came automatically, I’m not sure why) that wants to suppress dissent. A law that would automatically criminalise the normal behaviour of a government’s opponents (as well, of course, of its own offspring) is an open invitation to abuse.
Perhaps jury nullification (a refusal to convict) might save kids maliciously prosecuted because of who their parents were, but any offenses sent to judge-only courts (coming to a mistrial near you soon….) would presumably lead to convictions, even with minimal sentences. And then a life-sentence of a “sex offender” registration.
Who’d oppose a government when they have a perfectly legal means to destroy your children’s lives? What an incredibly stupid (and pernicious) idea.
This post by The Philosophical Cowboy isn’t exactly on the standard issues of White Rose, but does have a civil liberties fringe – basically, it appears we might be in for a resurgance of arguments for high taxes, based on alleged “negative externalities” of earning more money.
The solution? A 30% marginal tax rate to penalise the “pollution” involved, and a 30% additional tax to, well, just encourage people to take time off.
It’s worth reading for more background, and (a lot more objections), but I think this is the key objection that can be raised, and should be if this idea gets more circulation:
“But the main issue is a moral one. Let us stipulate that there are negative externalities from me working an extra 10 hours a week – I make X number of people feel bad, and I also substitute some leisure time I’d probably have rather not given up. So what?
Lots of rights have the potential for negative externalities. Without even being nasty, my use of my right to free speech can see myriads of your pleasing illusions shattered, destroying your happiness. I can act in innumberable ways that can make you uncomfortable or unhappy – I have a moral obligation to be a good neighbour, but the right not to (within obvious limits); I can drive you out of business by building a better mousetrap; my less reputable mates can date your daughter or woo away your significant other; I can advocate political positions you consider reprehensible (just ask me). And whilst I probably wouldn’t do most of those, I pretty much have the right to, and the government doesn’t get to stop me just because it would make you sad.
So why do you get to take 30% of my income just because me exercising my right to work as and where I can find useful things to do, just because it makes you want to work harder? There are certain “negative externalities” that shouldn’t be compared to things like pumping oil into a river, noise next door, etc – they’re not even the same ball game.
I think it’s fair to say (correct me if I’m wrong) you get to complain about a negative externality if it reduces the value of your property or that you extract from some right of yours. But just because me working harder can cause you to value your leisure less, doesn’t mean you should tax me – after all, on that rational, Martin Luther should have been hit with a 90% tax to pay for the Protestant work ethic…”
Steven Chapman is the sort of blogger whom White Rose readers ought to keep on their list of haunts. He has White-Rose-relevant material here about how war erodes civil liberties, even in the face of the strongest written constitutions, and here about car surveillance via road pricing, with a link to this Observer story.
There’s a White Rose angle to the Pfizer drugs story, and of course Pfizer aren’t the only drugs company involved. They just seem to have a higher profile.
The present situation is that the Canadian government is making it a condition of sale for the drugs companies that in Canada they must charge less for their drugs than they would like to. In the USA no such rule applies, and the prices charged for their drugs are higher. So, some Canadian retailers of drugs are, as predicted, making money by selling on some of the drugs they buy at the cheap rate, back to the USA.
This has caused the drug companies to intensify their already elaborate product tracking efforts so that they can spot Canadian retailers who are doing this.
Drug companies have sophisticated means of controlling imports. Data-tracking companies keep close tabs on doctors’ prescriptions, so companies are keenly aware of actual local demand in much of the industrialized world. The companies also closely track buying trends. When drug orders at a particular pharmacy spike in the absence of a similar jump in nearby doctors’ prescriptions, executives investigate.
Drug wholesalers also help manufacturers track these trends. “Together with the manufacturers, we have worked to identify the pharmacies that have been shipping back illegally,” said Larry Kurtz, a spokesman for the McKesson Corporation, one of the largest drug wholesalers in the United States and Canada.
The general point: when an economy is working without state interference, a seller is glad to sell to anybody, so long as the seller is willing to pay the asked-for price. Once he has, great. The buyer can then do with the product anything he likes, including resell it to someone else. The seller, in other words, will have no motive to spy on buyers to see what they do with the product. But in an interfered-with market, sellers do have a motive for such tracking.
Well, correction. Sellers often do want to know what buyers do with products. It’s called market research. But if a customer wants to buy a product, but doesn’t want to cooperate in such market research, the seller usually takes the money and does the business, and lays off with the market research.
Not so, with these errant Canadian drugs retailers. They definitely don’t want to tell the drugs companies how they are using their products, if they are using them by reselling back to the USA. But the drugs companies really want to know about this. If that makes for a fight, too bad. The drugs companies still want to know. The retailers are playing dirty if they resell to the USA. The drugs companies will also want to play rather dirty, to find out, the way they never would to do mere market research. It all makes for bad vibes, and creates a drugs-companies-lead demand for further intrusive and creepy product tracking systems which normally they might shun, on the grounds that regular customers might not like such arrangements.
Who makes the crucial decision about whether to prosecute in the first place? And who picks the person who does this? And who have they picked?
From today’s Independent:
The government was accused of “rampant cronyism” last night after a barrister from Cherie Blair’s law firm was named as the head of the Crown Prosecution Service.
Ken Macdonald, a founding member of Matrix Chambers, where the Prime Minister’s wife practises under her maiden name Cherie Booth, will become Director of Public Prosecutions in the autumn.
Doesn’t sound good, put like that, does it?
A spokeswoman for the CPS said Mr Macdonald had been appointed to the £145,000-a-year post by a panel of impartial senior civil servants and legal figures. She said: “The selection process was completely transparent and accountable. It was an open competition. The fact he comes from a distinguished chambers signals that he is a leading barrister, but the chambers he comes from had no other bearing on the appointment.”
I suppose that could be true.
SFGate.com reports on a legal challenge to the Patriot Act:
Civil rights lawyers filed a challenge Tuesday to a section of the federal Patriot Act that makes it illegal to provide “expert advice and assistance” to groups with alleged links to terrorists.
The ban is unconstitutionally vague and should be struck down, the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights argued in a motion filed in federal court.
John Lettice of The Register writes:
To little fanfare last month the UK’s Office of National Statistics announced proposals for the creation of a central electronic database containing birth, death and marriage records. Announcing the publication of “Civil Registration: Delivering Vital Change,” and a consultation process running through until 31st October, the ONS listed key changes as including the ability to register births and deaths online,* in person and by telephone, greater choice as regards marriage ceremonies and “new arrangements for access to registration information.” The creation of a centrally-held “through life record” for everybody however appears not to have been deemed a key change of sufficient moment to make it to the press release.
That’s paragraph one of his piece. It’s worth continuing. Whatever you think of Lettice’s judgements and fears about all this, you will probably learn something.
FT.com reports that the UK government’s proposal to genetically screen all newborn babies and store the information in a database is likely to be rejected by the Human Genetics Commission, the watchdog set up by Labour in 1999 to monitor advances in biotechnology, on the grounds of being unworkable, expensive and potentially threatening to civil liberties.
Baroness Helena Kennedy QC, the head of the HGC, said the medical benefits of the Human Genome had been over-hyped, leading to unrealistic expectations and the threat of discrimination against people who carried certain genes.
It is one of those things that initially has great attraction: The idea that you might be able, at the begining of your life, to know so much about yourself that you can pretty much chart your life appropriately, make sure that you have twice the normal helping of spinach and therefore throw off the chance of getting a disease. But it does not take account of where a child might be living, what it might be susceptible to because of its environment, and all the other factors that interact with your genes and change the prognosis.
The proposal to test all babies was announced in a White Paper published in June. It promised £50m ($80.4m) to expand the ability of the National Health Service to cope with the rapid advance in genetic testing.
|
Commentary
Economics
Politics
Specialist
Tech
|
