Yet There Is Method In It

On BBC’s question time:

Goldsworthy: How far is he [Hoon] prepared to go to undermine our civil liberties to protect us… [from terrorists?]
Hoon: …To stop terrorists killing people in our society, quite a long way.
[and later]
Host: The words Julia [Goldsworthy] used were “undermining peoples civil liberties”. You said you would go quite a long way to undermine people’s civil liberies?
Hoon: Because the biggest civil liberty is not to be killed by terrorists.

Now I would grant that the right not to be killed is a human right. Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” But it is not correct to put this single natural right over the others in the way Hoon argues. With this logic, all the other rights may be abridged to serve the right “not to be killed by terrorists”. If anything, staying alive is less important than the other civil rights. As Patrick Henry said, “Give me Liberty, or give me Death!”. If you don’t have the other civil rights, some might think it justified in risking one’s own life to achieve civil rights - this is the case of revolutionaries, freedom fighters and “terrorists”.

I notice that article 12 begins “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy….”. I guess one way to get around this right is to attempt universal surveillance so no individual can claim their privacy was arbitrary violated?

Anti Citizen One

Plans to extend pre-charge detention from a maximum of 28 days to 42 were defeated in the Lords by 191 votes. BBC

They still plan to introduce it if there is an emergency - which means civil rights can be abridged when inconvenient for the state. Keep paying attention to this.

I doubt we will be needing this power anyway.

AC1

Update 21/10 UK’s top prosecutor warns against growing state power

Several very interesting news items:

“A federal judge says the University of California can deny course credit to applicants from Christian high schools whose textbooks declare the Bible infallible and reject evolution.” Interesting state and religion issue. SFGATE

UK Government proposes wide reaching surveillance powers to investigate … well anything. I expect we will soon be given a helpful reminder by an anonymous camera operator when I forget to turn the oven off. I am now thinking the balance of power to the government from the individual is getting extreme. Individual rights are fraying at the edges and are almost torn apart. PCPRO

China: where an application to hold a protest is met with arrest for “disturbing social order”. BBC

Interesting piece on atheism in the US - The Guardian

And a subscription only news item, the New Scientist had a issue exploring the boundaries of reason. I have not finished reading all of it yet!

AC1

The government should adopt a Bill of Rights for the UK, a cross-party committee of MPs and peers has urged. BBC

I cautiously welcome this idea but I hold many reservations. If the present UK government has such a feeble grasp of human rights, how can they hope to advance this cause?

Building on existing protections is a noble aspiration which will be difficult to fulfil as long as so many other politicians denigrate our existing Bill of Rights - the Human Rights Act - in thought, word and deed. Shami Chakrabarti

The shadow home secretary has resigned in an apparent attempt to throw down the gauntlet over the governments 42 day detention without charge. Although this is a highly original political move, it has the same air as Monty Python’s Judean People’s Front.

Suicide Squad Leader: We are the Judean People’s Front crack suicide squad! Suicide squad, attack!
[they all stab themselves]
Suicide Squad Leader: That showed ‘em, huh?

I can’t blame them for trying.

In a similar battle against the US political majority, Democratic Representative Dennis Kucinich recently called for the Senate to impeach Bush. Political observers do not expect this action to make headway and the resolution has been sent to committee as a delaying tactic.

The problem is the US senate (and the UK parliment) mainly supported the Iraq war and are hardly likely to approve an investigation that might expose their flaws. Since there has been an election in both countries, they know there is no great public pressure to force the issue. The UK government defeated a similar attempt to launch an inquiry into the Iraq war in March 2008.

Anti Citizen One

It strikes me that several recent government policies have been concerned with resisting a decline in our “way of life”. Security, the economy and our personal welfare are all held by governments as something that is already good and must be protected from immigration, terrorism and violent crime. This view tends to see the world as a place that has no room for improvement and as decline which must be prevented. We are then victims of outside sinister forces. We are almost presented with the choice:

1) To surrender to external forces and see our way of life change.

2) To fight change and maintain the status quo.

The paradoxical (and ironic) problem with resisting change is that to resist, we must already accept change to a way of life!

I will give you an example: fundamentalist terrorists wish to undermine the open society and impose a totalitarian government - all aspects of people’s lives are centrally controlled. The way we are fighting this is to centralize power and rip up the open society! Recent instances: surveillance, long detention without trial, supporting extraordinary rendition, alienation of minority communities and curtailing individual freedoms. All these activities as the characteristics of what we are supposedly resisting.

Surly the best way to resist this trend is to strive for the opposite society is to do the opposite? We should increase transparency of government and police, increase personal freedoms, involve minority communities in government, and encourage personal responsibility over reliance on a father figure government. We can fight terror best by ignoring it. Terrorism is a propaganda tool to force political change. A propaganda tool is defeated if it is ignored. The impact of terrorism can also be reduced by designing infrastructure to be distributed and redundant.

Anti Citizen One

A teenager is facing prosecution for using the word “cult” to describe the Church of Scientology.

The unnamed 15-year-old was served the summons by City of London police when he took part in a peaceful demonstration opposite the London headquarters of the controversial religion.
…
Writing on an anti-Scientology website, the teenager facing court said: “I brought a sign to the May 10th protest that said: ‘Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult.’ The Guardian

The mind boggles. Under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1985, “a person is guilty of an offense if they [...] display any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby”. The word cult, in this context, is a critical term but also it is the central point of the protest. Does that mean all criticism of “new religious movements” (the non-perjorative term) is illegal? Based on the police action, the answer seems to be YES.

The police clearly over stepped their bounds and authority - the teenager has something known in subversive circles as “legal rights” under the “European Convention on Human Rights” (section 10 if you are interested). Secondly, criticism as part of a peaceful protest is not “threatening, abusive or insulting”.

The police should ask for the prosecution to be dropped and issue guidance to all officers as to what is “threatening, abusive or insulting” to prevent this happening in future. Remember tolerance does not mean refraining from criticism.

Anti Citizen One

Misplaced fears about terror, privacy and child protection are preventing amateur photographers from enjoying their hobby, say campaigners. BBC

“Jacqui Smith is to press ahead with moves to hold terror suspects for up to 42 days without charge despite the growing prospect of defeat on the measure.” Independent

I now have to address: what is the purpose of counter terrorism? Current trends would seem to indicate that its purpose is to resist political influence by terrorists. Apart from the danger of self identifying as victims (”potential terrorist targets” - see Slave Morality) this definition also can lead to being reactive, not proactive, to terrorism. For a resistance against a force to exist requires a force to be applied.

A more robust policy might be to allow that “people can go about their business freely and safely” (UK Home Office) or in “Preserving our Freedoms” (US Department of Homeland security). Apparently both these organizations apply these definitions without irony! Current trends indicate law enforcement calling for increased powers to “fight terrorism” without proper scrutiny. For example the FBI impeded their own investigation to give justification to have expanded powers. In the UK, local government put a family under surveillance to see if they were cheating school catchment areas (using powers that were justified by more serious situations).

If the law enforcement bodies actually worked toward their ideal of “preserving freedom”, then it is clear that the best - or at least better - reaction to terrorism is to ignore it at a social level and NOT to curtail civil rights. Call me crazy but wasn’t terrorism illegal before 2001? Like in the IRA campaign? (Obviously we need a new enemy to worry about since the end of the cold war. Read your Orwell.)

We live in a three way struggle - individual, state and terrorist. Individuals surrendering all responsibility to the state just don’t want to be free? What we need instead is a massive decentralization of infrastructure so any terrorist attack has reduced effect. I was reading in the New Scientist that the highly interconnected world (i.e. globalised and centralized) may be susceptible to a pandemic induced collapse of the civilization rather like the Roman Empire.

Anti Citizen One

PS See I did not even mention Nietzsche in one post…. D’OH!
PPS I wonder how long before terrorists target celebrities - that would probably cause the most anxiety in the TV viewing nations.

You see hundreds of houses every day. What if one has unusual activity and seems suspicious?

Terrorists live within our communities, planning attacks and storing chemicals. If you’re suspicious of a property where there’s unusual activity that doesn’t fit normal day-to-day life, the police need to know. Let experienced officers decide what action to take.

Just kidding! Those are not my words.

The top two paragraphs are actually part of a new counter terrorist campaign by the London police. Apart from reading like: “don’t think, let the state think for you!” and “anyone different to you might be a terrorist!” it also reminds me of a poster in the TV comedy Red Dwarf:

Betray your family and friends. Fabulous prizes to be won!

Nice,

Anti Citizen One

PS If anyone is weird enough to start reading this from the bottom, you know who you are(!!), you are probably less likely to think I have gone crazy with the start of this blog post…

“Contrary to earlier explicit assurances that Diego Garcia had not been used for rendition flights, recent US investigations have now revealed two occasions, both in 2002, when this had in fact occurred,” Miliband told MPs.
…
“We both agree that the mistakes made in these two cases are not acceptable, and she shares my deep regret that this information has only just come to light,” Miliband said. The Guardian

Raised this concern last summer. “I tried telling them, but they wouldn’t listen. They never listen…” (Vir, B5)

The question is will anything be done to rectify this? Will anything be done to stop it happening again?

AC1