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]
|
And we need ID cards why exactly? So London was attacked and hundreds were killed or wounded by Islamic fanatics (showing incidently why we are utterly right to be fighting these vermin wherever they are to be found)… and having ID cards would have made not one damn bit of difference.
Next time some pontificating dissembling jackass holds up ‘terrorism’ as why Britain need these odious things, I am likely to spit in their face.
|
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.
|
I would recommend hanging around in the vicinity of senior members of the current government, as they will doubtless afford you such an opportunity once things have died down a bit. I for one would love to see you do it.
We had better spit in the face of Sir Max Hastings, who argues thus in the Daily Mail today, the pompous, overblown wanker.
It was interesting to hear even the repulsive Charles Clarke admit today that ID cards would have had no effect on yesterday’s atrocity.
Not that will stop the bastards, of course.
Firstly, it is not known that Islamic fundamentalists carried out this attack. Even if they did, the small scale, limited damage and lack of simultaneity in the explosions suggests a tiny and weak group or perhaps two (or even one) individuals. Given the timing, it could be anarchists. Of course, it may well be Islamists, but it is seldom wise to jump to conclusions.
Secondly, you might give Big Ears credit for stating that ID cards would not have prevented the attacks. He said that no system could, but that the question is whether or not the proposed system is helpful in tracing the perpetrators afterward.
EG
Euan Gray writes:
“Firstly, it is not known that Islamic fundamentalists carried out this attack…”
Quite right. In fact it was clearly the work of the militant wing of the Women’s Institute.
I see it only took you 7 minutes to prove my point.
EG
I read it was the militant wing of the Gleneagles Golf Club.
“it is not known that Islamic fundamentalists carried out this attack.. I see it only took you 7 minutes to prove my point.”
Of coures it’s not known is it Euan? Even if they admit to it, it still won’t be KNOWN for certain will it? Even if they’re caught on film it can always be argued that they were muslims being paid by the Blair/Bush juanta, the Free Masons or the Jews. The only point you have is the one your hat covers.
It is not known whether Euan Gray has a brain or is in reality a clever constructed Turing device simulating stupidity.
Watching the events from afar (THE OC, California), this topic piques my interest since they blather on and on about National IDs here as well. Since the US/Mexican border is a sieve through which not only desperate Mexican migrant farmers might filter, the ID debate is likewise utterly laughable. Who’s checking that ID on the Texas / Mexico border at 3 a.m. 500 miles from the nearest checkpoint?
And if this event wasn’t militant Islamics, we’d all better launch to the moon or commit hara-kiri. For in that case, “Our true enemy has yet to reveal himself” never meant more.
…showing incidently why we are utterly right to be fighting these vermin wherever they are to be found…
This is an understandable emotional response, but it betrays a lack of strategic thinking.
How exactly does fighting Islamic terrorists in Iraq/Afghanistan/wherever stop bombings from happening in London/NYC/Madrid? “Fighting them over there” and “fighting them here” are not mutually exclusive.
Pulling off terrorist attacks is cheap and easy, and there is no shortage of soft targets. Short of utter genocide, there is no military solution. The State cannot protect you.
By all means, we should work hard to intercept terrorist attacks. But that’s just a stopgap. Over the long term the only hope of success is to dry up the political and economic sources of terrorism. And that involves taking a long, hard look at the west’s foreign policy decisions.
“…the small scale, limited damage…”
How do you know how much damage was caused underground? X-ray eyes eh?
The limited casualty count coupled with the police assessment that each device contained less than 10lb of explosive, not to mention the fact that most of the tube system was running again less than 24 hours after the explosions.
EG
And that would stop the attacks? How exactly, when their stated purpose is to subjugate the entire world under Islam?
Disagree with the West’s decisions, sure, but once they resort to bombing civilians, they are barbarians, not part of civilization.
TWG
Edward
A polite request: please, can you lot on the quisling left just STFU until after the weekend, at least until all the bodies have been retrieved, before blaming anyone but those responsible?
Mr Clarke has admitted that ID Cards would not have stopped this attack, but he wants ID Cards anyway. Well my world view may be shaped by being a frothing-at-the-mouth classical liberal but these attacks are if anything an arguement against ID Cards.
The nutters that did this fear our freedoms, and want to destroy them. So the best way that we can beat them is by maintaining our freedoms, and helping the rest of the world to free itself as well. Any errosion of our civil liberties is a victory to them as it brings us a step closer to the constrained world they favour.
Not that I expect the authoritarians like Mr Clarke or Mr Blunket, that are already in love with ID cards, to see things this way.
Jonathan,
In the words of Mandy Rice-Davies, “he would, wouldn’t he”. Max Hastings would probably only like to see ID cards introduced simply because it gives him yet another reason to admire his own photo.
They are an argument neither way. Having ID cards would not prevent such attacks, as Madrid shows and as the Home Secretary concedes. NOT having ID cards would neither prevent the attacks nor make them more likely.
The government’s argument is that having ID cards helps in tracking the perpetrators after such an attack. This is nothing to do with making attacks more or less likely, or even raising two fingers to terrorists. As it happens, the argument is bilge unless it becomes necessary to use ID cards to access the underground or get on a bus, which is to say the least unlikely.
Freedoms such as habeas corpus and the rule of law are rather more important and are the cornerstones of a free nation. Whether one has to carry ID cards is, in this narrow context, irrelevant.
EG
Julian Taylor – Ha ha ha! V good!
“The nutters that did this fear our freedoms, and want to destroy them”
This sentiment is spoken often by Bush and co. and many others. I have no love for Islam, and certainly no sympathy for terrorists. I don’t believe in giving into or negotiating with terrorists. I believe in killing them. However…
I have never heard or read a claim by any terrorist organization/group that the attacked out of hatred for our “freedoms”… OTOH they almost always state a hatred for our foreign policy.. please before you jump all over me, I’m not suggesting we pull out (though I’m not suggesting we shouldn’t either) of all our (the US’s) foreign positions, or change our policies, but to say the “terrorists” hate our “freedom” sounds simple and naive.
They DO hate our freedoms – the freedom to drink alcohol, to worship (or not) whichever deity we choose, the freedom of our women to be educated and to dress attratively and have a social life of their own, the freedom – rapidly evaporating in GB – of speech and thought.
Duncan Sutherland – surely you are aware that terrorism was an escalating problem for Western civilisation before we went to Iraq or Afghanistan? The WTC and many smaller, but lethal, bombings happened before President Bush declared the WoT. They hate the West because they are incensed that we are so successful despite having such a fine lack of interest in their diety and despite according no import to all that diety’s many rules and injunctions.
Verity: exactly. I also don’t think that it’s our freedoms that bother them the most, but rather our success. Moreover, the moment (if it ever comes) they realize that the latter is largely due to the former, will be the moment we (and they) win the war.
Alisa – Interesting thought. I would have to say I think the two are intertwined in their heads. How could we be so successful while feeling perfectly free to break all the rules their god has made for everyone?
We do everything wrong – according to their Stone Age tribal lights – and damn it, things keep on working out for us! There must be incredible anger, knowing that the TV on which they watch their beheadings, and foreign news by satellite, and mobile phones, and aeroplanes, and microwaves, and cars – including oil refining (who wudda thunk that black stuff seeping out of the sand was worth something?) – and every damn’ thing, really, was invented by people who have absolutely no interest in their religious rules.
I really cannot believe that some are still utterly ignorant of the nature of our enemy. Foreign policy? Pah!
Read this piece at Harry’s Place and Christopher Hitchens in today’s Mirror and drop this self-hating, whiny it’s-all-our-fault crap.
Verity,
“surely you are aware that terrorism was an escalating problem for Western civilisation before we went to Iraq or Afghanistan?”
Yes and US involvement, both direct and indirect stretch back quite a ways before either of these current events as well..
Now for the record (I’m looking at you pete_london)
I’m not making any comment on the success and or wisdom of our policies regarding the ME. I don’t blame America or the UK or anyone else for these acts other than than the culprits themselves.. which I think I made pretty clear. They may very well hate our values, but if we had no dealings in this part of the world with some of these backward, desert folk, I don’t think we’d be seeing the same aggression. I’m not saying we’re wrong to do what we do / have done… just that acting as if these things occur simply because the fundamentalists can’t stand the thought of us watching MTV, drinking coke and wearing bikinis is silly and grossly over simplified… like something you’d tell child rather than get into detail.
Pete_London writes:
” …drop this self-hating, whiny it’s-all-our-fault crap.”
An excellent response to the rubbish written by people who deliberately turn a blind eye to the true nature of what attacks us.
Until the government of this country is prepared to secure our borders, nothing it does, not the introduction of identity cards, not blanket cctv, not doubling the size of our police force, will make us secure. Until we stop allowing people who hate us and plan our destruction to enter and live in this country, we will never be safe.
And, I might add, until we stop admitting people who rub chilli peppers into a little girl’s eyes ‘because she is a witch’, we will never have a coherent, homogeneous society.
Identity cards are being proposed by the same people who brought about this state of affairs. They claim it as a cure for the problems they created. Who but a fool would believe them?
Euan, bear in mind another point: ID cards are being introduced by this government to give the impression that something is “being done” about security. The paradox is that it could create a false sense of security and hence reduce the natural wariness on the part of the public. Yet another example of the law of unintended consequences.
ID cards should also be viewed on a cost/benefit basis. Think of how many intelligence operatives, police, soldiers, etc, could be bought with the money likely to be spent on ID cards. Even if you are untroubled by the civil liberties aspects of ID cards, Euan, the hard practical consequences for public spending ought to carry weight.
Oh yea… this is about ID cards…
They suck…
sorry for getting off topic.
Johnathan,
I know perfectly well that ID cards are going to be a disaster. Not for civil liberties reasons, because frankly and whether you guys like it or not most people aren’t going to give a stuff about that, but because they simply won’t work.
The IT itself is seriously ambitious, which should give one pause. The detection/scanning technology plainly doesn’t work anywhere near reliably enough. Forgeries will be available within weeks of the system starting. Whole classes of people ideal for terrorism (asylum seekers, temporary visitors, etc) won’t need them. It will be extremely difficult to convince the authorities of any error in the database, since the database is THE trusted identification system. And, of course, it won’t be necessary to carry the damned thing anyway. It won’t even be necessary to have one at all until at least 2013. Perhaps more importantly in practical terms, the scuttlebutt is that our prime-minister-in-waiting doesn’t like them (presumably on grounds of cost) and is likely to quietly kill them when he assumes the purple.
ID systems only work when possession is universal and mandatory, and where the ID must be carried and produced on demand. The system must be simple enough to work with greater than 99% reliability at all times. This is not going to happen with computerised databases, smart cards and iris scans.
The civil liberties arguments – other than the compulsion of having to carry a card – don’t work for me. It is way too late to worry about stuff like that on an ID card/database when you are already tracked and monitored by your car, bank cards, credit cards, CCTV cameras, any time you visit a doctor, etc, etc.
EG
G Cooper, well, as you know, this “government” aka a bunch of whiny, ignorant, tenth rate, appeaser Trots, Marxists and former presidents of Students’ Unions, is not going to do anything to secure our borders. And, at this Mad Hatter’s tea party being overseen by Phony B Liar, the Honourable Opposition is frightened to even suggest that they may do such a thing themselves if elected.
Meanwhile, a joke by the name of Ian Blair – whose first official deed was to spend £15,000 of taxpayer’s hard-earned money to change the Met’s motto because it was in script and discriminated against people who couldn’t read joined up writing – is in charge of Britain’s largest police force. And the truly repellent Hugh Paddick, who’s made a career out of being gay, gives a press conference saying that Islam and terrorist do not belong in the same sentence.
The securing of Britain’s borders and the protection of British citizens is the last thing on Phony Bliar’s mind. This, of course, begs the question I have never seen asked: What exactly is on Phony Bliar’s mind?
De Havilland: “…showing incidently [sic] why we are utterly right to be fighting these vermin wherever they are to be found…”
Except in Saudi Arabia. And Pakistan. And Iraq, if they are having exploratory talks with the Americans and Brits. And in the USA, where immigration controls are a joke. And in Chechenya, where we tell Putin not to be too hard on them. And in Uzbekistan, where they are among the ‘democratic opposition’ for the time being. And in Afghanistan, where some of the nicer Taliban are being structured into Hamid Karzai’s tottering regime.
Oh dear, how complicated life is beyond the rhetorical bloodthirstiness of website warriors.
Matt O’Halloran writes:
“Oh dear, how complicated life is beyond the rhetorical bloodthirstiness of website warriors.”
And how simple it seems for armchair liberals. The very people who have got us into this mess with their cultural auto-immune disease.
>>And, I might add, until we stop admitting people who rub chilli peppers into a little girl’s eyes ‘because she is a witch’, we will never have a coherent, homogeneous society.
A coherent, homogeneous society, eh?
Ein Reich, Ein Volk . . .
Except in Saudi Arabia. And Pakistan. And Iraq, if they are having exploratory talks with the Americans and Brits. And in the USA, where immigration controls are a joke. And in Chechenya, where we tell Putin not to be too hard on them. And in Uzbekistan, where they are among the ‘democratic opposition’ for the time being. And in Afghanistan, where some of the nicer Taliban are being structured into Hamid Karzai’s tottering regime.
Oh dear, how complicated life is beyond the rhetorical bloodthirstiness of website warriors.
Do you have an argument, sir, or are you merely trying to be amusing by stating the obvious, or whining about how life is not perfect? Quite certainly we do not have the manpower or resources to fight wars simultaneously against every single threatening power, despite how we might like to. Nor are every single group the same. Those of us who appreciate the complexity of life recognize that we must be broad and expansive in our goals (to defeat all terrorists everywhere), and logical and reasonable in our efforts (achieve what is possible, and strike first where easiest, where politics, materiel, and other things allow.) For example, striking against an already declared enemy is much easier than striking against a dupicitious “ally.” So too, is it worth accepting concessions on the part of an enemy in exchange for moving them down the target list.
Those who refuse to do anything because we cannot do everything simultaneously are the true idiots who cannot appreciate the complexity of life. If you have cogently argued reasons for why different actions would be good, that is one thing. But so often I merely hear arguments of the sort: “We cannot do anything about X because Y is out there and ignoring Y is hypocritical; we cannot do anything about Y because X is out there and ignoring it is hypocritical; we cannot possibly take on X and Y simultaneously.” Smug and self-satisfied, they convince themselves of their moral purity, avoiding the hard decisions and prioritizing that make up the real world.
T.J. Madison writes:
“A coherent, homogeneous society, eh?
Ein Reich, Ein Volk . . . ”
No matter how long the Internet persists there will always be some clown who hasn’t heard of Godwin’s Law.
So when, exactly, did we ever have a coherent, homogeneous society? And if we have never had one before, why do we need one now?
Oh, so you’re in favour of importing radical Islamists and African child-torturing witch-hunters?
I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised.
No, I’m in favour of you answering questions.
Euan Gray writes:
“No, I’m in favour of you answering questions.”
Well, I’m awfully sorry Mr Gray but, in common with several others here who have been sucked into your ceaseless, attritional trolling wars, I’m not biting.
Perry,
In a similar vein as the non-preventative effects of the ID cards, DefenseTech has an interesting piece noting that London’s ubiquitous camera system didn’t prevent the terrorist strikes either:
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001665.html(Link)
Michael Reed writes:
“…noting that London’s ubiquitous camera system didn’t prevent the terrorist strikes either”
That’s a very good point and one that isn’t made sufficiently often. Many millions of pounds have been spent on cctv systems and I’ve yet to see any convincing evidence that they have brought any benefits to anyone but the cctv makers and operators.
I don’t respond to any of Euan Gray’s posts at all. Trolls are so last century.
That’s a shame, because I have a feeling your ideas of what constitutes a coherent and homogeneous society must be on a comedic par with your previously expressed belief that we are, after more than 900 years, apparently still coming to terms with the Norman Conquest.
Any terrorist worth their salt will have impeccable ID,a clean driving licence,no credit problems and a valid Day Rover for the tube.
Apprehension post atrocity will be futile since most of the above items will be thoroughly mixed up with the terrorist.
If the perpetrator is caught he will sit cozily behing a human rights lawyer and our wonderful legal system.
Before the attack he will be undetectable,after the attack he will be dead or indifferent.
BTW,canwe name the ID card after the Home Secretary,call it the DUMBO
Peter is spot on:
the Id card may prove who you are (and then again, it might not even do that very well), but it will certainly NOT say anything about your intentions.
If I was in the business of planting bombs in rush hour trains, and was not a suicidal crazy, I doubt my next action would be to update my contact details on my ID card….
and I cannot BELIEVE that the Times has sold out when London is showing such superb resilience.
http://infinitivesunsplit.blogspot.com/2005/07/anarchists-id-cards-liberty-and.html
Actually, whilst we are on this topic, can anyone – really anyone at all – provide a link to any site that supports ID cards at all, let alone one with a reasonably well argued and supported case for them?
“No, I’m in favour of you answering questions.”
Who are you that anyone should answer your questions?
I and anyone else has the right to ignore you. Get over it.
And given your first statement on this thread claiming that it was unwise to leap the the bleedingly obvious conclusion of who was responsible, it would seem to me that providing you with factual information would be completely pointless.
Your attempts to minimise the scale of the attacks are transparent nonsence. These attacks were highly coordinated over a large area. In every respect they have the marks of other attacks we know to have been carried out by al-Qaeda or affiliated Islamic terrorists.
50 people are dead. Wake up, or expect to be ignored on a regular basis.
I am always interested by the debates here, but I am afraid that this time GCooper and T. J. Madison you have both lost the argument, at least according to wikipedia:
For the record a ‘homogenous’ society sounds horrific and frankly dull, but I am all for excluding and immediately deporting all those who quite clearly despise our nation and way of life.
Interestingly I think I have an ideal solution for putting off Islamist terrorists. They are not afraid of death, but they may be afraid of their bodies being cremated after death as, apparently, this would prevent their souls from reaching heaven.
cuthhyra writes:
“…at least according to wikipedia:”
Yes, forgive me if I point out, not for the first time, that wikipedia’s opinion on anything as a definitive opinion is absolutely worthless.
As for your distaste for a homogeneous society, well, I’d say welcome to the alternative, where barbarians blow innocent strangers to jelly because those strangers refuse to bend the knee to Wahabism, and savages rub chilli peppers into the eyes of children, because they have barely crept out of the Stone Age.
If that’s multi-culturalism, you can keep it.
Personally, I (and I don’t doubt anyone else who isn’t a self-deluding half-wit) would prefer to live in a society where the ground rules are held in common.
Of course, if you are a Gramscian, I appreciate that would be difficult to countenance.
Wikipedia, that renowned font of unjudgemental knowledge …
Interestingly I think I have an ideal solution for putting off Islamist terrorists. They are not afraid of death, but they may be afraid of their bodies being cremated after death as, apparently, this would prevent their souls from reaching heaven.
Given that this has been suggested on many, many blogs over the last five years, I wouldn’t think the word “interestingly” as in ‘new thought’ actually applied. Other variations of your “interesting” thought – which may not yet have struck you – are covering their corpes in pig fat, which is awfully unfair to the pig, especially given that it would have to have given its life to provide this insult – or dogshit. More humane.
cuthhyra: “For the record a ‘homogenous’ society sounds horrific and frankly dull,”
cuthhyra – may I call you cuth? – most of the world is homogenous within its region. There are few Zulus hanging out among the Masai on the Seringeti, and not a lot of tall, heavy, blond, blue-eyed Finns in French W Africa or happening Brazilians in Saudi Arabia. But heaven forefend we should delay you if you have an appointment somewhere more dazzling …
Ok, not highly original, I apologise. I thought the wikipedia commentary was lighthearted and I’m sorry if it was taken any other way.
No I am not a Gramscian and yes I am all for a common set of ground rules, the law of the land etc. I am not a supporter of the product of multiculturalist thinking and neither am I a cultural relativist. If a culture is abhorrent then it is quite right to attack it. It seems quite clear that our society has laws and customs which it expects to be followed and enforces where they are not, but this does not mean that all the people are identikit people. This is all I was getting at. Where someone is working to undermine our way of life they should be dealt with accordingly, but that hardly means that society should be homogenous, that a Jew cannot live next to a Christian. I’m realise that is not what is being said, but when words like homogenous are used it can be implied.
Perhaps I got off on the wrong foot here as I believe we are on the same side. Clearly what happened in London was Ismaic Terrorism and should be dealt with as such.
Let us just get on with the development of alternative energy sources. We can then ignore oil and the Middle East, and let Israel deal with the problems there. Give them a couple of years and there will be no Mecca to turn and pray to.
cuth- “that a Jew cannot live next to a Christian”. Do you live in Britain?
nick – this is our absolute exit door from entanglements in the ME and Indonesia. New energy sources, which we develop ourselves, as we developed oil, oil-refining, cars and gas stations. Something new. It can’t come soon enough.
“Over the long term the only hope of success is to dry up the political and economic sources of terrorism.”
Edward, that sounds an awful lot like the usual preamble to a lefty justifying the acts of these violent scum ie blaming the West.
But, following your logic. then what we need to do is “dry up” the political source. Right. That means destroying the radical imams who preach jihad.
The “econmic source”? OK–that means invading Arab countries and taking the oil by force instead of paying for it.
Fine by me.
Why are terrorists bombing London, New York, Madrid etc.? They obviously desire some sort of outcome. That outcome seems to be a withdrawal of all Western armies, culture and thought from ‘traditional’ Arab and Islamic areas. That is not an achievable outcome. The inhabitants of those countries will always look enviously to the West, unless forcibly trodden underfoot by their own leaders. That is an achievable outcome. Those leaders would then be armed with Western technology and a large expanding population of willing combatants, fueled with religious fervour and with little to lose. That is not a desirable outcome (for the West). Therefore we attempt to convert them to democracy, even as they attempt to convert us to radical Islam. I know how I would like to live, and all of those ‘leftist’ dissenters who think that the other way is somehow preferable seem to have voted with their feet and reside anywhere but the countries they eulogise. The West (America, Australia and the UK, with Europe, Canada and NZ hanging on their coattails) will win the war, but Islamists will win some battles. Such is the way of all conflicts. I can only hope to see the eventual outcome, in our favour, in my lifetime.
nick-It is important to note that as a result of Islamic demographic growth in Europe, they may soon regard it as within ‘their traditional areas’, and when that happens, half the West could be lost.
The converting of non-muslims to Islam is overstated, and I believe few non-muslims convert. They’re beating us through the womb though.
TWG
Oh, and regarding the energy problem, some progress has been made. They’re going to build a prototype fusion reactor in France.
http://www2.townonline.com/stoughton/opinion/view.bg?articleid=283444
TWG
I don’t come here expecting to be agreed with, let alone demanding it. Thus I’m at a loss to understand why Euan Gray’s comments inspire such personal invective. They are always curteous and well-argued, and often the most interesting ones offered.
Pedant-General:
[…] I cannot BELIEVE that the Times has sold out when London is showing such superb resilience.
The Times’ editorial position on ID cards and other such topics is conditioned by the long-term Murdoch strategy of not annoying governments, or governments to be. It will be supportive, or at least not overly critical, as long as the Blair regime is firmly in power and firmly committed to the policy. Should it become evident at any point that the government has reversed its position on ID, or should the Tories, led by David Davies and committed to abolition of a wretched and popularly-hated ID Agency, find themselves on the way to a landslide, then we can expect The Times (and The Sun) suddenly to discover a strident ID-skepticism.
Actually, whilst we are on this topic, can anyone – really anyone at all – provide a link to any site that supports ID cards at all, let alone one with a reasonably well argued and supported case for them?
The first demand is easy, if not for the easily distressed of libertarian leanings. These charming people. And these charming people.
“Well-argued and supported” is the tricky one. If you award marks for sophisticated weasel-wordedness, then the Home Office may qualify on the well-argued criterion. If you don’t mind the quality and look for quantity of supporting material, then HMG may squeak through on that score–though they might do better if they weren’t keeping most of the documents confidential (and some of them secret). High-quality mendacity and mountains of paperwork do not, however, make a sound case.
ID isn’t much affected by this. What is most directly called into question is the “civil contingencies act” – sweeping emergency powers signed into law in ’04. Of what possible use could this be, if the proper response to a terrorist attack is to “not allow them to change our way of life”? What plausible event could possibly trigger it? It seems to have no non-nefarious use.
these charming people.
I had never heard of this bunch. They seem to think the Bank of England was founded in 1664 instead of 1694, and that because of this the living standards of the white working class have declined. I tend to think the average person in 2005 is a bit better off than someone in 1694.
Duncan Sutherland writes: :.. just that acting as if these things occur simply because the fundamentalists can’t stand the thought of us watching MTV, drinking coke and wearing bikinis is silly and grossly over simplified… like something you’d tell child rather than get into detail.”
How about details such as the historica religious duty of the Muslim faithfu; to wage Jihad? To expand the realm of Belief against the Infidel? About Muslim imperialism?
TELL ME, exactly what bout these beliefs is (1) childish and (2) irrelevant to understanding Islamism?
Or did you not read Amir Teheri’s piece in the Times on Friday?
Verity – “Do you live in Britain?” I do, it is a great country, Blair&co aside.
Certainly David Davis stance on ID cards is commendable compared to that of Howard. With Davis stating that ID cards would “chip away at the basic liberties we would have come to hold dear, and which previous generations fought to protect” and brilliantly a “vision rather like this was originally set out by a man called Blair who later changed his name to Orwell and wrote a book called 1984. It was supposed to be a warning. This government has used it as a text book.”
I agree Julian, the ‘civil contingencies act’ is a very threatening document, especially since it’s parameters are so loosely defined. It does have apparent limitations on the creation of new offences and enforced military service, but for all other possible uses the only qualification is that “the person making the regulations is satisfied [that they are] appropriate for the purpose of preventing, controlling or mitigating an aspect or effect of the emergency in respect of which the regulations are made.” This effectively gives “the person” in charge carte blanche to make any regulation they wish and they already would have such powers as the confiscation of any property without compensation.
Developing new fuel sources will not solve the problem,they have been where we live,they have seen it and it is good,they want it.It is also required that we submit to the will of Allah,what is hard to understand about all this?
Detailed identity data simply allows those of a specific race or creed to be rounded up more easily.It was found most useful in WWII.
The energy issue is useful in that it reduces the world’s dependence on Saudi oil, where much of the religious extremism originates from.
However, looking at the projected success of fusion, which is estimated to take at least 50 more years to complete(if not more), the struggle will likely be over by then.
TWG
Euan, there is a blurred line between the sheer inconvenience of the Big Brother world we are creating and the civil liberties threats therein. ID cards are likely to be a bloody nuisance.
With any luck the logistical problems and cost of this wretched venture will kill it off. Maybe Gordon Brown, if he becomes PM, will shaft the venture. I hope so.
Jonathan – interesting saving clause … Personally, I don’t think Brown is going to become prime minister. Or if he does, it will be for a year or so. It’s a feeling I’ve always had.
And the truly repellent Hugh Paddick, who’s made a career out of being gay, gives a press conference saying that Islam and terrorist do not belong in the same sentence.
Verity,
I made the same Freudian slip. The entirely blameless Hugh Paddick was a gay actor who played, amongst other parts, Julian in the “Julian & Sandy” sketches in “Around the Horne”.
Brian Paddick is the Met Police ubergay who believes that we must never mention “Islam” and “terrorist” in the same sentence. I heard the press conference, and his PC outrage would have been comical if it had not been so depressing. I wish someone had asked him in that case if they were searching for Methodist terrorists by any chance? No? Wonder why not?
Brian Paddick is a politically correct ponce, but his sexuality effectively renders him unsackable in the modern police “service”. We are safe in his hands.
John K – You are correct! My abject apologies to Mr Paddick of Julian and Sandy fame.
Yes, the repulsive Brian Paddick employed his homosexuality as a career move and has bludgeoned the politically correct Met with it so they are terrified to say him nay. That this slimy individual is a spokesman for the Met tells us much about the Met’s sad decline.
I wish some reporter had indeed asked if they would be targetting Methodists or Swedish flatpak furniture salesmen.
“Detailed identity data simply allows those of a specific race or creed to be rounded up more easily. It was found most useful in WWII.” Can someone from Samizdata please address this?
It does not ‘work’ for you because you are a willfully blind idiot. It is actually the data pooling that will be put in place that makes it all so very very different.