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]
|
It is rare for the Prime Minister to provide an insight into his intellectual worldview. Writing in the Observer today, Blair details his views on civil liberties and his differences with the liberal tradition.
These [summary] powers have a strong philosophical justification, from within the Labour tradition. Social democratic thought was always the application of morality to political philosophy. One of the basic insights of the left, one of its distinguishing features, is to caution against too excessive an individualism. People must live together and one of the basic tasks of government is to facilitate this living together, to ensure that the many can live without fear of the few.
That was why it was important that rights were coupled once again with responsibilities. As Tawney once put it: ‘what we have been witnessing … is the breakdown of society on the basis of rights divorced from obligations’.
Blair argues that the tradition of social democracy applies “morality to political philosophy”, with the unspoken implication that other traditions are unable to do so. This is accompanied by an attack on individualism with a phrase of much potential: that government ensures “the many can live without the fear of the few”.
Recent history has appeared to demonstrate that it is the few who should live in fear of the many. It is not surprising that the Left views the majority as a moral virtue.
At about 6 am this morning I woke up startled by the sound of a distant thud. It turns out that the noise was caused by a huge explosion at a fuel depot in Hertfordshire to the north of London. A massive plume of smoke is pouring into the sky and traces of it can be seen above the skyline in central London, dulling what would otherwise be a magnificently blue, bright sky.
So far, no-one has been killed in the blast, which happened in an industrial estate rather than in the midst of a densely packed area of housing. Thank goodness. The police are so far treating the blast as an accident. We shall see. The M1 motorway leading north has been closed. If anyone reading this has any travel plans, I’d give the Hemel Hempstead area a miss.
Stepping out of the Hyatt in Istanbul yesterday morning to the sound of the muezzins calling to prayer, an ancestral shudder came over me. The chant was alien but not insignificant. I grew up with tales of Turkish invaders ravishing my country’s land and no doubt many a fair maiden (no wonder that my eyes have a hint of almond shape). It was the buffer zone between the Ottoman Empire and the West and had endured the waves of invasions by Avars, Tartars and Turks throughout its history. There are many castles in Slovakia, each with its own story of siege and resistance to tell, which have become part of the fabric of the nation and its folklore.
I did not expect Istanbul to remind me of all this. I came here from an entirely different direction – to find whatever traces of Constantinople still remain. Hagia Sofia was to be the highlight of my visit. As a child I remember leafing through my mother’s books on history of art and two pictures made a profound impression on me – Sainte-Chapelle and Hagia Sofia. I promised myself that one day I would see them, no matter what. This was no mean feat for a 10-year old living in deep communism, with not much hope of ever getting as far as the other side of the Danube to Austria. But one lives and dreams.
So when I was invited to speak at a conference in Istanbul, I accepted. Time to see Hagia Sofia, I thought. I was very much looking forward to it, expecting the Byzantine shine through the ages of the Islamic. The entrance was grandiose and reminded me of old cathedrals, with rough walls and majestic ceilings. Once I stepped inside the main nave, there was no magic for me. It was dark and gloomy but I usually do not mind that. It struck me as dilapidated and forgotten, the calligraphic roundels with Arabic script the victor’s graffiti stuck on to mark his prize winnings. There are still marks on the wall where the original crosses were ripped out.
I wondered around for a while trying to unwrap the beauty of the place. I did find the magic in the end. The mosaics are exquisite and one has to gasp at the image of the entire church decorated with them. The great dome used to be covered in golden mosaic and the tinkling sound of pieces dropping to the ground was familiar to visitors until 19th century.
Above the mihrab, the niche indicating the direction of Mecca, is a striking mosaic of the Virgin with the infant and on its right, of Archangel Gabriel.
Mosaics of six-winged seraphim adorn four corners of the dome. They contrast strangely with minbar (imam’s pulpit) and other features added by Ottoman sultans after the conquest of Istanbul in 1453, when the church was converted into a mosque.
For various reasons I am reminded of a line from Kingdom of Heaven, although not the greatest film ever made, sums up the difference between Islam and Christianity – Mohammed says submit, Jesus says choose. And whether you are a believer or an atheist, there is no denying that this difference has affected the way the two cultures have gone.
A few more pictures from grimy, chaotic, interesting Istanbul…
Turkey… NATO member and on the frontline of the struggle for secularism
Hagia Sophia, now a museum, is a fitting place to ponder the fact civilisations and not just nations sometimes disappear
Perhaps the coolest place in Istanbul is a cistern, built by Justinian! It is unknown why the two statues of medusa are sideways and upside-down
The bazaars and streets are insanely busy and…
… you see the strangest things!
I must say I find the place fascinating, though my travelling companion might use rather different words.
Louise who? Louise Arbour is High Commissioner for Human Rights at the UN, that is who. Now like it or not (and I certainly do not), most people reading this blog pay for the United Nations and so have an interest in what their tax money buys in that cesspool of corruption. One of those things is Louise Arbour’s salary so that she can defend ‘Human Rights’.
Now rather prominently amongst those things commonly felt to be a human right is the right to express yourself, just so long as you are not crying ‘Fire’ in a crowded theatre or actively inciting people to violence. Yet when a Danish newspaper prints some cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, sparking protests from Muslims, does she support the right of Danish people to express themselves? Hell no.
U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour was investigating the matter. “I understand your attitude to the images that appeared in the newspaper,” Arbour wrote the Organization of the Islamic Conference. “I find alarming any behaviors that disregard the beliefs of others. This kind of thing is unacceptable.”
Investigating? If it is ‘unacceptable’, it sounds like she is well past the ‘investigating’ stage as it looks pretty damn clear who she thinks is in the wrong here. Let me tell you what is unacceptable. Pandering to people who want to see force used to ‘punish‘ people for saying things they do not like, that is unacceptable. Claiming to defend human rights on our dime while giving aid and comfort to intolerant bigots, that is unacceptable.
Muslims should feel free to express themselves too. Let them match through the streets and scream until they are blue in the face, calling the entire editorial staff of Jyllands-Posten “kufur bastards” if they like, just so long as they do not call on the state to ‘punish’ them. The state can only punish people for breaking the law and there is nothing illegal about expressing critical views about Islam.
Either Louise Arbour immediately recants her views and accepts the non-negotiability of freedom of the press or she must be sacked. Your tax money pays for her antics, so you can demand her removal.
Tell you Member of Parliament/Congressman/Senator/whoever. Got a blog? Pass it on. Sack Louise Arbour.
I have been rather puzzled that no one has written about events on Sark. And it has finally occurred to me that, rather than sitting about saying “why has no one written anything?”, I should write something myself.
Sark is an island (or technically a small group of islands) in the English Channel. It was part of the holdings of Duke William of Normandy (William the Bastard) and since his conquest of England in 1066 the fortunes of Sark and (what is now) the United Kingdom have been, in some ways, linked.
Although Elizabeth II is the head of state of Sark it is not part of the United Kingdom (people who are from Australia, New Zealand, Canada or some other places will not be surprised that one can have the same head of state without being part of the same country), but the government of the United Kingdom does stick its nose into the affairs of Sark in some ways.
For some administrative purposes Sark is part of the Bailiwick of Guernsey (which is also not part of the United Kingdom). However, unlike Guernsey, Sark has not introduced such things as income tax. Guernsey introduced a nominal income tax at about the time of the First World War and then an income tax of 20% at the start of the Second World War – sadly never repealed.
Nor is Sark a democracy (as Guernsey is). The hereditory “Seigneaur” (the Channel Islanders origninally spoke Norman French after all) is assisted by a council of 40 land tenents (the “Chief Pleas”) which undertakes the duties of government. In the 1920’s 12 elected deputies were added to the Chief Pleas but (as far as I know) they have never sought absolute power for themselves (sorry, absolute power for “the people”).
Thus Sark has avoided democracy (and many of the “postitive” welfare rights that so many people now seem to believe must go with it). And is indeed known as one of the last strongholds of so called “feudalism” in the world.
Sark has had problems over the centuries (invasions by pirates, the occupation by the Germans in World War II and so on), but its most serious problem has turned out to be the coming of the Barclay twins.
These two brothers (who own, amongst other things, the Telegraph newspaper group) bought the tenancy of the island of Brechow some years ago. This is an island just off the coast of the island of Great Sark and part of the Sark group of islands.
Like all tenants the Barclay twins were required to swear loyalty to Elizabeth (their supreme feudal overlord) and to pay a 13th of the price they had paid for the tenancy to the Seigneur (their direct feudal overlord).
Sadly the Barclay twins have not been loyal to the Seigneur. Perhaps they feel justified in being disloyal because they have more money than him, or perhaps it is because they know that it is no longer a common practice to physically punish people who betray their lord.
The first sign of the disloyalty of the Barclay’s came when they appealed to international “human rights law” for the right to leave their tenancy to a female if they so choose. (Sark has had a female Seigneurs, such as the famous “Dame of Sark”, Sybyl Hathaway, who stood up to the Germans during World War II – but the laws on landholding do favour males.)
Now (last week) the Barclays have gone further. Again using international “human rights law” (with the help of the United Kingdom government) the Barclays have demanded that Sark introduce democracy.
Why should a libertarian care about any of this? Indeed why should not libertarians support the Barclays? After all the Barclays’ use the word “freedom” a lot and present themselves as proud individualists standing up to an oppressive government.
I admit that partly I just resent the end of old custom (the idea that a little place is governed by old traditions – a variation in a bland world), and I also happen to dislike the Barclays.
Leaving one country (to reduce your tax bill) is fine – but it is not fine (in my book) to then toss your weight about in your new country demanding that the ancient laws be changed and calling external powers (including the very United Kingdom government you moved to Sark to get away from the taxes of) to back you up.
But it is more than this.
No one has to stay on Sark. It may be “feudal” but there is no Serfdom there (as far as I know there has never been Serfdom on Sark) and the people do not want this new system of government (for all the patronising talk from the Barclarys about wanting good relations with the “common people” and desiring to educate them about modern political doctrines – “forcing them to be free”?).
Finally consider the off the cuff remarks of the Seigneur (Michael Beaumont) “nothing much is human rights compliant here” and “of course we will have to have a lot of civil servants now”.
I think this tells us what we need to know about a lot of modern conceptions of “human rights” and “democracy”.
Back in November I commented on how some Islamists in Denmark were getting worked up into a lather over some cartoons run by the newspaper Jyllands-Posten in which the prophet Mohammed was portrayed in a less than endearing light.
Well it seems that this story is destined to run and run. People in Srinagar, the largest city in Indian controlled Kashmir, have gone on strike in protest over the Danish cartoons. Now am I the only one who finds this truly bizarre? It is hard to imagine a provincial Danish town, say, Esbjerg, suddenly downing tools to protest a comic saying rude things about Lutheranism in a newspaper in the Indian sub-continent.
Still, it does go to show that there truly is a globalized culture war going on and that is it has nothing to do with the “evil plots of the Bush-Hitler Illuminati”. The fact people in Srinagar even know about the Danish cartoons is remarkable. That the Islamists should have taken the bait Jyllands-Posten dangled in front of them is rather splendid because you cannot win a war, cultural or otherwise, by just defending yourself.
And this is a war we can and must win and, best of all, we get to fight it on ground of our own choosing because what the people of Srinagar have shown is that the enemies of open society can be easily goaded. It is not about ‘social justice’ or ‘economic deprivation’ or any of those smoke screens generally deployed by the Fisks and Galloways of this world when they make their apologias for Islamo-fascism, it is about confronting a culture of intolerance and refusing to tolerate that.
I am out of London for a few days, taking in the sights, sounds and tastes of Istanbul.
They know a thing or two about footie in these parts
Almost every turn brings an interesting skyline
It would appear the gun laws are far less benighted than in poor defenceless Britain
The skylines are really amazing (click for larger image)
Rather cool Turkish police station… no doubt best seen from the outside
I had not realised how dramatic the Bosphorus is… a tremendously busy sea-lane running right through the centre of a large city is quite something to behold
The sense that the city revolves around the sea is everywhere. There are so many rod fishermen that my fanciful head started having images of ancient phalanxes (click for larger image)
And just to ensure no one thinks this report from Istanbul is being posted by an impostor… yes, the city is well stocked with rather fine ladies My first impressions of Istanbul are that it is dirty, chaotic, its traffic verges on homicidal, the food is great, people seem helpful and friendly. In short, simply splendid!
In the Sydney Morning Herald entertainment blog, Edmund Tadros made this rather extraordinary claim on Wednesday:
Australian blogs will never be as hard-hitting as their overseas counterparts because of our restrictive laws.
Now, I wonder, why would anyone think that? How do you define ‘hard-hitting’, anyway?
Is a hard-hitting blog one that causes events, especially public events?
Is a hard-hitting blog one that changes public opinions, or stimulates thought?
In the United States, political groups have used the internet to telling effect, and blogs have also exerted a powerful if difficult to define effect on public debate. The rise of Howard Dean, the Trent Lott affair, Rathergate and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were all things that could have happened in the context of the Australian legal environment.
Australia also had an election in 2004, but there was only one major effort to use the Internet to influence the Australian public, that being the ‘Webdiary‘ of Margo Kingston, (which was then hosted by the Sydney Morning Herald). The reasons why ‘Webdiary’ was so ineffective in the public debate were numerous, but the principle reason must surely be the total intellectual incoherence of the site and the vulnerabilitiy of the main contributors to the most paranoid interpretation of public events. The most famous example of this was probably the famous ‘anti-gravity’ article in 2003, but it was never easy to take seriously a campaign lead by a senior journalist who could not spell. Margo’s spelling errors and flights of fancy deprived her campaign of credibility and provided a rich lode of material for the likes of Tim Blair and “Professor Bunyip” to mock and ridicule her.
The more prosaic truth is that many Australian blogs are not very good, and those that are good tend to either be more interested in talking about policy of interest to a small few, or are devoted to dissecting and satirising Australian culture. The plain fact is that ‘the great Australian political blog’ is yet to be born. There’s plenty of room for an Australian blog with journalistic skills and political savvy to wake up the slumber in Australian politics, and it has nothing to do with the Australian legal climate.
But it certainly will not be a blog that chewed through $44,000 in its first 10 months as an independent entity.
Britain’s Law Lords, the nearest thing this nation has to the U.S. Supreme Court, has ruled that evidence obtained by torture is inadmissable in a criminal court. I’ll state right off that this surely has to be the right decision for cases including those of terrorism. Torture is a sort of “canary in the mineshaft” issue in a civilisation. The willingness to admit evidence obtained by torture is a no-go zone for me. Even on practical, consequentialist grounds, the use of torture cannot be expected necessarily to give valuable, credible evidence for those trying to prevent terrorist attacks.
The broader point for me is that there is not much point trying to defend civilisation if we use barbaric methods.
The rule of law has had a good day today.
Update: so far 117 responses! By my rough calculation, about 70 percent think torture is a legitimate practice in certain cases. I honestly don’t know whether the comments are representative of Samizdata readers overall. What I do find odd is that so many of you fellows, normally so hostile to abuse of state power and suspicious of things like ID cards, are prepared to let state agents use torture. That cannot be right.
Britain’s government surrenders billions of our money to the EU in return for… nothing much… and that has left the UK government ‘isolated’ because more was not surrendered.
The gall of the Gauls at insisting Britain’s taxpayers stump up even more when they are massively greater beneficiaries of the EU’s largess than the UK is breathtaking but far from surprising.
Britain is not even nearly isolated enough from the EU for my taste.
James Bartholomew, author of ‘The Welfare State We’re In’, agreed to face a panel of unsympathetic critics in a debate held at the London School of Economics and arranged by BBC Radio 4. Whether the structure of this debate met the guidelines for impartiality laid down by the BBC is a moot point, but James Bartholomew conveyed the major points of his argument, despite interruptions from the panel and the chair that truncated the majority of his argument.
Nicholas Barr is Professor of Public Economics at the European Institute, LSE and author of The Economics of the Welfare State. Edward Davey MP, Liberal Democrat spokesperson on Education, MP for Kingston and Surbiton and a contributor to the recent Orange Book – Reclaiming Liberalism. Niall Dickson, formerly Social Affairs Editor for the BBC, is now Chief Executive of the King’s Fund. Professor Pat Thane is director of the Centre for Contemporary British History, and author of The Foundations of the Welfare State.
None of the panel disagreed strongly with the facts presented by James Bartholomew. It was clear that disagreement stemmed from two fundamentally different worldviews rather than disputing the contemporary effects of the welfare state. Whereas some consider functional illiteracy of 20% to be an indictment of state education and a sufficient reason for its abolition, the panel viewed this failure as room for improvement. Without making the trite comparison of managerialism versus morality, the effect of politics as the art of the possible on individual lives was made very clear.
The poor may have suffered from insecurity concerning health care before the welfare state came into existence. However, if they felt fear over paying for their treatment, this has been replaced by the fear that they may not be treated at all due to healthcare rationing or professional triage. During his talk, James Bartholomew echoed Perry de Havilland and told the audience that the state is not your friend. He showed the blight that the welfare state has wrought on the lives of many individuals and stated that there were no panaceas which could reverse the social and cultural damage.
More thoughts from the speaker can be found here.
|
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.
|
Recent Comments