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]
|
Unseasonal, eh, Mr Blair? Lords Chancellors are political appointees, and certainly should not be idealised. But our Dear Leader is widely believed not to know or care about the past. So that the following dialogue is fiction should not be a problem.
…
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that.
More: Oh? And when the last law was down–and the Devil turned round on you–where would you hide? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.
— Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons
Or is it more important to look tough and caution be damned?
|
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.
|
OK – I’ll be first to say it: a great film (I’ve nver seen the play) closely following (for those intrested to know) the biography by R.W. Chambers.
But I’m sure More wouldn’t be too keen on the law as it is now, though he’d approve of what was what EU law is now, the overriding of English law by Papal law.
Don’t forget that Thomas More was as fanatical then as an “extremist” Muslim cleric is now, or even more so – no nonsense about “freedom of religion” or “freedom of speech” – and had the power to put his beliefs into practice. He burnt heretics and the English New Testaments of William Tyndale, whom he couldn’t get his hands on.
It’s 500 years from then till now. A good, principled man of his time, but let’s be careful of what principles of his we pick, and remember the times he lived in.
Now, it may well seem pedantic, but couldn’t that be construed as religious discrimination under Blair’s other new legislation?
Always good to see a socialist hoist upon his own petard.
I don’t think the principles are More’s at all: hence my rubric.
The historical More was noticeably zealous in prosecuting the king’s enemies — we have to wait for Coke LCJ (70 years later) before the conflict between law and reason of state is first genuinely debated–and in that case Bacon LC is on the king’s side.
But Bolt’s dialogue is justly famous as a clear statement of why simple prudence, leaving aside principle, demands we maintain the rule of law. Arbitrary power to destroy liberty is still lawless, even if legitimated by legislation.
All very commendable but it avoids the troubling question: what protection could the law offer Roper against the Devil?
“Create a list of foreign preachers who will be kept out of the UK ”
Why “create a list” ?? How “create a list” ?
Wouldn’t it be simpler to just deny a visa to all (repeat: all) foreign muslims (preachers or otherwise) ?
No law is needed for that. No rights are denied (no foreigner has a right to a visa).
This policy can be implemented even without publicly announcing it.
I guess that this was done in the US, and is what prevented terror attacks there after 9/11.
Jacob:
I don’t think even Israel automatically denies visas to foreign Muslims. The US certainly doesn’t.
No law is needed for that.
Possibly not, though, as you might suspect, I think perhaps border control ought to be subject to law.
No rights are denied (no foreigner has a right to a visa).
There you confuse, as does Mr Blair, legalism with morality. Of course denying someon a visa is a denial of rights, in the sense of freedom to travel–as is any imposition of visas and passports in the first place. To say someone has no enforcible right to a visa is simply to state a truism; it does not in any way justify that state of affairs.
There are in fact significant numbers of foreigners who have an absolute right to travel to and live in the UK without visas, so it is not clear that such a policy could be implemented in practice.
This policy can be implemented even without publicly announcing it.
You mean like the tactical orders to firearms officers were? Again, I don’t think that is a good thing. It is fundamental to rule of law that the law is knowable.
“I don’t think even Israel automatically denies visas to foreign Muslims.”
Israel automatically denies visas to all countries that are officialy at war with Israel or don’t have diplomatic relations (as would any other sane country). That covers most of the muslim countries. As for other countries, like, say, Egypt – well, there is no big queue of visa applicants in Egypt. That means, that even if there is de-jure peace – muslims don’t come to Israel, and the few who apply for visa are carefully scrutinized.
“The US certainly doesn’t.”
How do you know that ? Ask any person who is a citizen of a muslim country, or is born in a muslim country. Very few manage to get visas. Hell, even Israeli Jews, born in Bagdad who immigrated to Israel at age 2, 55 years ago can’t get a visa to the US. Israel’s defence minister, Shaul Mofaz, born in Teheran, was denied a visa until the Foreign Affairs Minister, Silvan Shalom, (himself born in Tunisia) intervened.
So, there…
“Of course denying someon a visa is a denial of rights, in the sense of freedom to travel–as is any imposition of visas and passports …”
Sure. Theoretically. In Utopia. In our real world there lamentably are wars, and countries need to defend themselves.
“There are in fact significant numbers of foreigners who have an absolute right to travel to and live in the UK without visas, so it is not clear that such a policy could be implemented…”
True. But that may have to change, or you resign yourself to having some bombs blown up in crowds every now and then.
Denying entry to all the nationals of a particular Muslim country is not the same thing as denying to all foreign Muslims, which is what you appeared to be suggesting.
The US definitely doesn’t do the latter, since plenty of British Muslims go there, and only a handful are arbitrarily excluded. And as you point out yourself, the former is plainly nuts, too. The US quite often gives a very good impression of being terrified ofany foreigners.
You’ve just explained yourself that for an Egyptian getting a visa to Israel is difficult, but not automatically denied. And there is a rather more obvious example in Palestinian workers and family visitors who are pretty regularly admitted to the country from occupied territories–presumably not banned as being from an enemy state, because the enemy in this case is not recognised as being a state. Or do I have all that wrong, too?
I am prepared to put up with more virtual risk of bombings in exchange for free movement and free institutions, BTW. (I write “virtual” risk because I think you are wrong in assuming border controls will prevent terrorism.) On the contrary, to continue in, and expand, our own freedom is the greatest threat we can offer to those who fear it.
guy herbert:
“The US definitely doesn’t do the latter, since plenty of British Muslims go there…”
US consulates work according to well established bureaucratic (thumb ? dumb ?) rules:
British passport ? check. Born in Britain ? check. No visa required. Morocco passport ? no visa. Born in Damascus ? forget it.
Nothing is automatically denied. It’s just denied. There may be exceptions for persons who have good connections or a lot of money to hire lawyers and buy influence. But, for all practical purposes, visas to the US are denied.
With Palestinians in Israel the case is different – they were not considered foreigners, and could travel freely anywhere in Israel, without visas, without passports – just their ID card. Then the intifadas started, with busses blowing up. That changed things. Now there are maybe 15,000 Palestinian workers who have special permit to enter Israel, with security clearance, and strict searches at crossing points. ( Rumors say you need to pay a hefty bribe to get a permit, and also pay some cut to the Palestinian “authorities” ).
Also many businessmen, reporters or professionals (doctors, engineers, politicians) travel quite freely on VIP permits. At times of tension, when there are “security alerts” (usually some days AFTER a bombing), borders are closed, and nobody crosses.
I am prepared to put up with more virtual risk of bombings in exchange for free movement and free institutions,
This reeks of abstract generalization. Nobody wants a total suspension of freedoms. That’s not the issue. The issue is – you need some practical measures of defence. You need to do some trade offs, to adopt those security measures which seem effective and useful, while not violating much of the freedoms that exist.
Curtailing and screening foreign visitors from terror infested countries (arabs) – is a sensible measure, not really violating the freedoms of British citizens. Enhancing surveilance of British Muslims that show extremist tendencies is also a reasonable policy. Denying assilum and citizenship to suspect foreigners or deporting illegal alliens is ok too.
So, in all, Blair’s proposals are sensible.
Maybe, as a purist libertarian, this is already too much for you, but I assume most people do not put up gladly with the risks of being blown up, and they are right. After all, the right to life comes before the right to liberty.
I’m by no means a purist libertarian. But the presumption of “trade-off” is precisely what I’m fighting against here. We do not in general make ourselves in safer by making ourselves less free, any more than we make ourselves richer by economic protectionism — though some people will feel better in both cases. We should always be suspicious of offers of protection from bullies.
GCooper’s acute question is to this point. The answer is the Devil comes in more than one shape, and laws and social institutions do inhibit his taking some shapes. Against others there may be no protection. The search for certainty in all cases, like Roper’s slash-and-burn approach to law, is likely to tear up implicit protections we never noticed.
“The answer is the Devil comes in more than one shape, and laws and social institutions do inhibit his taking some shapes. Against others there may be no protection. The search for certainty in all cases…”
These are again abstract generalizations. Fine. But let’s see how they apply to our concrete circumstances.
You have not addressed the particular proposals that Tony Blair put forward, like for example – denying visas to foreign hate mongers and inciters to violence. You have not stated what, in particular, you deem too much of a curtailment of freedom. Unless you hold in general – that all anti-terror measures are wrong in principle – in which case I disagree.
I certainly wouldn’t disagree that most anti-terrorism laws are wrong (Diplock and internment excluded), but where I would strongly draw a line is the later application of those ‘anti-terror’ laws against ordinary citizens as a matter of normal criminal practice. We have already seen the Anti Social Behaviour Order Act degenerate into from its original purpose, against a specific kind of unpleasant individual, into some incredulous form of ‘Angry of Tunbridge Wells’ catchall law – do we really want to see far more powerful anti-terrorism laws eventually abused by a Labour government into a tool used to cow British citizens (Muslim or other) into malleable submission?
At his 29th July press conference Deputy Assistant Commissioner Peter Clarke, head of the Anti-Terrorist Unit in London, claimed that he didn’t need any more laws passed, extended or amended and that all the laws in place were more than sufficient to deal with the Al Queda 2 style of terrorism. Unfortunately that seems to have fallen on deaf ears when you bring Our Little Tone or Charles Clarke into the equation.