“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
Without undermining the importance of national security or the danger of radical jihadists, politicians in the United States and Europe need to keep a sound perspective on the costs and benefits of exchanging our liberties for a little temporary safety. At the moment, many of our anti-terror laws are so vague that they give law enforcement agencies the ability to intrude on or detain individuals with no ill intentions.
The Magna Carta, the U.S. Constitution, and several British laws guarantee Habeas Corpus. The 42-days law, which passed this week, and the Patriot Act, suspend this "essential liberty" for supposed "temporary safety." The solution is not difficult: if you are going to arrest them, do so with enough evidence to charge the suspect.
It remains to be seen whether or not the law passed yesterday is the result of horse-trading. But, as Lord Goldsmith said,
My fear is that this particular issue over the period of detention without charge has become a symbol of political virility.
This is precisely the problem with the issue of terrorism. It is not a matter of public safety or national interest. It is an issue that politicians use to bolster their own popularity. With Gordon Brown fighting to keep his head above water, it seems he is trying to prove he still matters.
It appears McCain might now supports warrant-less wiretaps on US citizens such as those undertaken by the Bush administration. This contrasts with previous comments he’s made on the subject, when he said that he would consider himself obligated to obey the 1978 statute that calls for court oversight of federal surveillance.
When McCain is called upon to clarify his position, who knows which side he will come down on. He has historically distanced himself from Bush’s stances on torture and interrogation. Yet since the primaries are over, it is hard to pass this off as a simple political move to get hawkish Republican supporters; if anything, he should be wooing independents, libertarians, and those on the right who have been increasingly disturbed by this kind of hubris from President Bush.
The idea that only “trial lawyers and the ACLU" oppose the idea of federal agents listening in on American citizens is absurd. The last thing America needs is a president who maintains or even furthers the unprecedented expansion of presidential power that has occurred in the last eight years in spite of explicit laws.
McCain’s economic positions have largely been very sensible so far, and his break with the Republican field on torture and interrogation methods was refreshing. Let’s hope he retracts this statement and that we’ll soon hear the limited-government candidate supporting limitations on his own power as president.
There is an evil oozing through our schools and streets. It captures teenage lives whilst promising a trouble free future filled with hope and unequalled happiness. It becomes the parent to the forgotten, the moralist, the ethicist and the educator. Absolving the real biological parents of any responsibility by assuaging their guilt through bribery and comforting promises. Yet this faux-parent regales in horror at the children it has produced when they attack others around them, how could their progeny reject their cold hard love?
Camila Batmanghelidjh writing in The Times highlights how children that are unloved, or exposed to violent, and/or abusive familial relationships are often those that are involved in violent crimes. These children are the ones that bully others into undertaking violence purely so that they may survive, something that is prevalent among the gang culture within cities. As she says, “Violence is therefore a public health issue - like a virus it is spreading among children." How did this situation come about whereby parents can completely disavow their responsibilities to their offspring?
The state has been complicit in undermining the family via the extensive welfare programmes it has introduced and also through state education. The state’s reliance on welfare to solve the problems of modern societies has created a moral vacuum filled with nothing but wasted taxpayers money. When children see parents and others achieving a level of wealth with little effort it sends the wrong message to them, this is where the state becomes culpable for the lack of morality. It then seeks to teach/care for these children within the education system, an education system that many parents of those that become violent do not care about. All the state wishes for is the indoctrination of these children so they become even more reliant on the state to survive.
Whilst this government seeks to find solutions to this ever increasing problem, it should pause for a moment, look down and it will discover that they are the ones holding the weapons that are currently destroying lives.
Sir John Major's article in yesterday's Times was a near-perfect analysis of the government's assault on Britain's traditional civil liberties. Writing about their plans to raise the maximum period of pre-charge detention to 42 days, Sir John wrote:
There is no proof that an extended period of 42 days would have prevented past atrocities. There is no evidence it will prevent future atrocities. No example has yet been given of why the police need more than 28 days to frame a charge. This is a slippery slope. Assertions that it “might be useful" simply will not do. If we are to curtail the liberty of the individual, we must have more certainty than that.
Exactly. The government's knows it can't make the case rationally, which is why they rely on demagoguery and scaremongering. The same logic applies to ID cards:
[T]he Government has admitted that such cards would not have stopped the London bombers. Nor will they cut illegal immigration, since asylum-seekers have been obliged to carry ID cards for nearly eight years. Nor will they have any real impact on benefits fraud, as this is typically caused by misrepresentation of financial resources rather than by identity.
And then there's the national identity register, containing the DNA of tens of thousands of people who have never been convicted of a criminal offence, and the intrusive surveillance state (which doesn't even need judicial approval), and so on.
We're always told that "only the guilty have anything to fear" – but that is a tyrant's plea. It's also a lie. The act of centralizing so much power and gathering so much information is, in itself, something we should all fear. The mere possession of such power and information creates the risk of abuse. Anyone with access to it is put on a position of power over others.
That's why, ultimately, the only good government is limited government.
An article in the Financial Times has prompted me to give a little sneak peek into a research project I’m working on. The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors is opposed to Boris Johnson’s plans to publish crime data for public use. A spokesman for RICS said:
Publicising high crime areas in such detail could literally wipe thousands off house prices overnight, further disadvantaging those who are already struggling to make ends meet.
Ironically, just last week I wrote,
Although “real estate developers and agents feel that public crime statistics will lower housing prices," this consequence indicates the potential success of the programs. In fact, one of the principle benefits of transparency is that ordinary citizens have the information necessary to make rational decisions. If access to knowledge of pre-existing crime conditions would adversely affect home prices, then the price should be lower. Property owners in the area would then have incentive to fight crime—both with and independent of the government.
The information would also allow the police to focus their efforts in hotspot areas and reduce crime. This would prevent house prices from falling and make the area safer for citizens.
A lot of us are unsatisfied with the status quo. Let’s hope Boris Johnson ignores the surveyors and moves forward boldly.
Religious-political institutions around the world are criticizing the British Parliament for yesterday’s vote to no longer require doctors to include "the need for a father" when administering fertilization treatment. The argument that Judeo-Christian values, or any religious ideology, necessitate pro-family legislation automatically caters the legal system to a faction of society at the expense of those who believe differently. After criticising Barack Obama last week, I’ll praise his advice to religious political institutions:
What [pluralistic democracy] demands is that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. [For example,] those opposed to abortion cannot simply invoke God's will--they have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, [or those of no faith]. (The Audacity of Hope).
If for some reason fertilization treatment for lesbians were indeed bad for society, the arguments should be based on scientific and empirical facts, not religious doctrine. They ought to remember what Abraham Lincoln said: “Certainly there is no contending against the Will of God; but still there is some difficulty in ascertaining, and applying it, to particular cases."
In preparing for a data communications Bill in November’s Queen Speech, the Home Office is investigating the idea of a communications database. The government, which has already implemented the European Union’s Data Retention Directive (whereby telecommunication companies are required to keep records for 12 months of all calls made and text messages sent), is looking to extend this to include email and website visits. This is to be coupled with the haunting prospect of it all being gathered together in a database for easy governmental access, so that they may ‘protect us’.
We should be fearful of the inherent inability for the information to remain secure in their hands. This database would hold even more sensitive data (how many emails contain credit card details?) available for them to lose, data that could allow local governments to spy on our behaviour. The potential for blackmail or cash for access to that data is greatly enhanced as well. This creeping introduction of the ‘Big Brother’ state is nothing more than a reflection of a complete misinterpretation of the natural order of society. As the Labour government’s introduced legislation fails, they seek to control us via the concept of database management and its systematic appeal. They do so because they wish to create a perfect, stable un-natural order.
Currently we live under a system of continual surveillance, and have done since the 1970s. It is light in touch and the government’s use of it is held in check by the judicial system. ECHELON, which screens all telephone and email communication for any incriminating phrases, is a listening service that is at the government’s disposal so that it may deal with any potential threats to our security. This governments desire to understand and re-order us means that ECHELON is of little use to them. We could all inevitably face being entered in a database. Thankfully though, there are only 709 days left for us to live under this cloud. If there wasn’t a chance to vote for a change of direction we would, more probably than not, be turned into bar-code branded numbers.
It's time to light up in the pub again...Yes, I realise that sounds absurd in the extreme, especially as you’ve not heard about the ban on cigarettes being lifted. But now technology has come to the rescue. A clever device has hit the market, which will enable you to get round the ban altogether.
Advertising for the Gamucci Micro Electronic Cigarette claims, "It looks like a cigarette, it tastes like a cigarette, it smokes like a cigarette, but it isn't a cigarette... [it] produces a real smoking experience without any of the deeply unpleasant side-effects of tobacco."
The device uses state of the art vapourising liquid to produce smoke and it comes with cartridges that release vary strengths of nicotine if you just can’t give up the weed. So what are you waiting for, spark up... or at least plug it in, charge it up, and stand at the bar puffing away! Oh what fun, to watch the nannies' faces turn puce with rage as they realize they can’t do anything.
Back when he first became prime minister (how he must miss those days!), Gordon Brown was keen to show off his social authoritarianism. Perhaps he wanted to create a contrast with David Cameron's 'liberal conservatism' and win over the right-wing press. Brown's 'son of the manse' streak manifested itself in his decision to veto the Manchester super casino and slam the emergency brake on liberalizing gambling, and to announce a review of the reclassification of cannabis from class B to class C.
Well, the review is over and it appears that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has recommended – quite sensibly – that cannabis remain a class C drug. But it also appears that – rather less sensibly – the prime minister is going to ignore their advice and have it reclassified anyway. As he eloquently told GMTV, "I have always been worried about cannabis, with this new skunk, this more lethal part of cannabis."
Let's be clear about what this means. Possession of a class B drug carries a penalty of up to five years in prison and/or an unlimited fine. Supplying a class B drug (which could just mean giving some to a friend) carries a maximum 14-year sentence and/or an unlimited fine. Such punishments are plainly completely disproportionate to cannabis – a widely used recreational drug that is by no definition of the word 'lethal', as the prime minister claims to believe.
That's not to deny that cannabis can be detrimental to a person's mental health. But reclassifying it to class B and turning thousands of otherwise law-abiding individuals into serious criminals is hardly a sensible response. It exposes the absurdity of the government's whole approach to drugs. It also makes educating the young about drugs even more difficult: they know that cannabis is not a 'lethal' drug and when the government claims it is, they are less likely to believe anything else they say.
100. "Nobody should be free to smoke in public places."
There are many things which people do in "public places" – a concept which now includes private property open to members of the public – which others find unpleasant. The question is whether they do significant harm to others. It seems well established that many smokers harm themselves, and are at risk of incurring diseases thereby. This does not justify state intervention, any more than our consumption of unhealthy food and drink justifies it. The state can warn us, but the behavioural decision in the light of that knowledge is our own. Most smokers do not appear to engage in criminal activity in support of or in consequence of their habit.
There is less evidence that passive smoke harms third parties. People who share living space over the years with heavy smokers might incur greater risks, but there is little to suggest that non-smoking patrons of bars and clubs stand a significantly greater health risk if others smoke. The bus which spews diesel fumes onto a crowded pavement, especially at the level at which children breathe, might well prompt greater health risks. Those who cough and sneeze in public places undoubtedly pose health risks to others, while the thoughtless use of mobile phones on trains and in restaurants might raise the stress levels of those who have to suffer it to health-damaging levels. Society usually takes the view that there must be a significant risk to others before it intervenes.
Some of those who support smoking bans claim that most smokers welcome them because it helps them to give up. Very few cigar smokers, also banned in public places, want to quit, though. And although many people would like to lose weight, few would regard this as a justification for society to ban caloric foods in order to help them diet. The principle should be consistent, and not single out smokers to ban.
It appears McCain might now 
There is an evil oozing through our schools and streets. It captures teenage lives whilst promising a trouble free future filled with hope and unequalled happiness. It becomes the parent to the forgotten, the moralist, the ethicist and the educator. Absolving the real biological parents of any responsibility by assuaging their guilt through bribery and comforting promises. Yet this faux-parent regales in horror at the children it has produced when they attack others around them, how could their progeny reject their cold hard love?
An 
In preparing for a data communications Bill in November’s Queen Speech, the Home Office is investigating the idea of a 
It's time to light up in the pub again...Yes, I realise that sounds absurd in the extreme, especially as you’ve not heard about the ban on cigarettes being lifted. But now technology has come to the rescue. A clever device has hit the market, which will enable you to get round the ban altogether. 
Back when he first became prime minister (how he must miss those days!), Gordon Brown was keen to show off his social authoritarianism. Perhaps he wanted to create a contrast with David Cameron's 'liberal conservatism' and win over the right-wing press. Brown's 'son of the manse' streak manifested itself in his decision to veto the Manchester super casino and slam the emergency brake on liberalizing gambling, and to announce a review of the reclassification of cannabis from class B to class C.
There are many things which people do in "public places" – a concept which now includes private property open to members of the public – which others find unpleasant. The question is whether they do significant harm to others. It seems well established that many smokers harm themselves, and are at risk of incurring diseases thereby. This does not justify state intervention, any more than our consumption of unhealthy food and drink justifies it. The state can warn us, but the behavioural decision in the light of that knowledge is our own. Most smokers do not appear to engage in criminal activity in support of or in consequence of their habit.