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]
|
David Frum has a strong editorial in today’s Telegraph writing about the anti-Bush demonstration in Lincoln’s Inn Fields in London last night.
The war on terror has glaringly exposed the moral contradictions of contemporary political radicalism: a politics that champions the rights of women and minorities, but only when those rights are threatened by white Europeans; a politics that celebrates creative non-violence at home but condones deadly extremism abroad; and, perhaps above all, a politics that traces its origins to the Enlightenment – and today raises its voice to protect militantly unenlightened terrorists from the justice dispensed by their victims.
He talks about how obtruse the ‘protesters’ were about answering his questions or generally engaging with him, warning each other about how he is bound to misquote them or quote them out of context. This is what he has to say to that:
I agree that context is everything, and the context of this week’s events is that many thousands of British people intend to converge on central London to protest against the overthrow of one of the most cruel and murderous dictators of the 20th century – and to wave placards calling the American president who ordered the dictator’s overthrow “the world’s number one terrorist”.
It’s a deeply shameful context, and though I would not quite endorse the verdict of the taxi driver with the poppy stuck in his dashboard who dropped me off at the demos (“Not many of them traitors out tonight, I see”), he at least saw something that they, with all their apparently abundant education could not: that the two leaders they most scorn are the latest in the long line of Anglo-American statesmen whose willingness to use force to defeat evil secured them their right to make bloody fools of themselves in Lincoln’s Inn Fields and through the streets of London to Grosvenor Square.
Although there is no love lost for Bush on this blog and we do endorse the taxi driver’s verdict, the article contains sentiments that we hope are shared by more people in Britain than the current coverage seems to suggest.
The Independent reports that lawyers and civil liberties groups yesterday urged the Home Secretary, David Blunkett, to back down over proposals to limit the right to trial by jury as he prepared for a bitter parliamentary battle to force the proposals into law.
In a letter to The Independent, the Law Society and the Bar Council joined civil liberties groups in urging Mr Blunkett to accept a string of Lords amendments toning down the Criminal Justice Bill.
Ministers will attempt to revive the plans in the Commons today after they were thrown out by a coalition of Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers. They will also try to reverse defeats over proposals to allow juries to be given details of defendants’ previous convictions.
I received an email from Dave Winer who is fighting a battle for an Internet free from interference from Big Media pointing to a post on Harvard Law School blog*. Here is the message:
I would love to see their candidates [ed. Clarke and Dean campaigns] make an impassioned plea to keep the Internet free of interference from the entertainment industry. I would welcome this for two reasons.
1. First, I’m part of a constituency, like many others, who are looking for a candidate to vote for who supports our primary issue. Nothing unusual about that, easy to understand.
2. But as important, it would signal that the candidate is not beholden to the media companies. I would happily give money to candidates for ads that warn that the media industry is trying to rob us of our future, and explains how important it is to protect the independence of the Internet. Use the media industry channels to undermine their efforts to the control channels they don’t own, yet.
…
If you agree, pass this idea on to each of the campaigns and to other voters. Let’s use the Internet to keep the Internet free, in a positive way. Make a clear statement, I will only vote for a candidate who supports a free Internet. And it’s a open source idea, Bush, Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, Kucinich, Moseley-Braun, Sharpton, et al are welcome to use it.
“Ask not what the Internet can do for you, ask what you can do for the Internet.”
Although I could not give a flying f*** about political campaigns and presidential elections, I am very much concerned about the Internet remaining free from political intereference. Dave Winer is correct in drawing attention to this pointing out how the symbiotic relationship between politicians and the media can spell danger for Internet as we know it today. Quite apart from the argument about the impact of pundit blogs on political discourse in the traditional media, Internet is undeniably changing balance of power in many areas in ways mostly unpalatable to politicians and the established media.
*There is a disclaimer that points out that he is speaking for himself and not on behalf of Harvard Law School or the Berkman Center for the Internet & Society.
Mark Littlewood, Liberty’s Campaign Director responds:
We need to guard against ID cards being introduced by stealth. Whilst we warmly welcome the Cabinet’s decision to put off a decision on making the cards compulsory, a fudged and muddled compromise is no way to proceed. All the evidence from other European countries suggests that ID cards are expensive, ineffective and damage community relations. In Britain, opinion polls show that several million adults would refuse point blank to carry one. The government should think very carefully before spending billions of pounds on a scheme that could ignite such public outrage. Tackling fraud, combatting terrorism and reducing crime require detailed and intricate policy solutions. ID cards are no answer at all. They represent a real threat to our civil liberties and our personal privacy. There is no obvious upside.
John Keegan writes about his meeting with Donald Rumsfeld. Aparently, he does not think the situation is that bad:
Mr Rumsfeld read me a series of reports, from the American regional commands, summarising progress achieved: terrorists apprehended, weapons recovered, explosives destroyed. The totals were impressive. Despite daily reports of American casualties, he was dismissive of the danger to coalition forces. Within the context of the total security situation, he sees the level of violence as bearable and believes that the trend of terrorist activity is downward.
Economically, the outlook is strongly positive. Electricity supply actually exceeds pre-war levels, with an output of 4,400 megawatts per day in October, as against 3,300 in January. Oil production is returning to pre-war levels, at nearly 2,200 million barrels per day in October, as against 2,500 million barrels before the war.
Socially, the country has returned to normal. More than 3.6 million children are in primary school and 1.5 million in secondary school. University registrations have increased from 63,000 before the war to 97,000. Healthcare is at pre-war levels and is improving rapidly, because of greatly increased spending, estimated to be at 26 times pre-war levels. Doctors’ salaries are eight times higher and vaccination and drug distribution programmes have also been greatly increased.
Mr Keegan was frequently asked why there is so much less trouble in the British than the American area of occupation. He conceded that America, the Great Satan is target of greater hatred and Britain as the ‘lesser’ Satan does not attract the same degree of hostility. Further he acknowledged that the southern Shia area, where the British are operating, has always been anti-Saddam and therefore their task is easier compared with the American policing of the Sunni area. Also, Basra has a long history of dealing with Britain going back to the days of the East India Company. However, he insisted that there is a fundamental difference between the British and the American approach.
While the Americans, for reasons connected with their own past, seek to solve the Iraqi problem by encouraging the development of democracy, the British, with their long experience of colonial campaigning and their recent exposure to Irish terrorism, take a more pragmatic attitude.
They recognise that Iraq is still a tribal society and that the key to pacification lies in identifying tribal leaders and other big men, in recognising social divisions that can be exploited, and in using a mixture of stick and carrot to restore and maintain order.
The conclusion is unexpected and I expected will be resisted by those who think the United States’ exceptional history and status is as a result of the country’s banishment of European political practices, especially its opposition to imperialism.
Forcibly, America is becoming an imperial if not an imperialist country. The attitude was exemplified by an encounter I had with a tall, lean, crew-cut young man I met in Washington. Our conversation went as follows: “Marine?” I asked. “Yes,” he answered. “Have you been in Iraq?” “Afghanistan. Just got back.” The exchange was straight out of Kipling. There is a lot more of that to come.
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the British Empire by the Americans and by most marxist and statist continentals, namely that it was driven economically, not politically, and maintained defensively for the most part. The British merchants explored the world for new markets and the British state defended territories where trade with Britain took hold. British imperialism was not the sort the Romans would recognise. We do not need to look that far back, comparisons with Austro-Hungarian Empire or the Soviet Empire would highlight the different nature of the beast. So being imperial may not be so bad, provided you stop short of being imperialist.
The Guardian has an inspiring leader yesterday about identity cards and David Blunkett’s approach:
Yesterday’s performance by Mr Blunkett was equally bad. He fudged on the huge costs, referring to only the first three years in which double-digit millions will be spent, when the 10-year bill has been put as high as £3bn. He exhibited a worrying faith in the foolproof nature of the new biometric technology – a faith which is not shared by financial service organisations. They have decided against biometric use for payment applications due to the rate of false positives and false negatives among other reasons. Here is an issue needing close scrutiny. True to his tradition, there was little concern from Mr Blunkett for civil liberties or the effects on community relations. Only a year ago ministers were saying ID cards were not needed to combat terrorism. Now it is included, along with illegal working, when the police have said there would only be limited effects. The ball is now in parliament’s court: that is the proper place to decide the balance between rights and security.
Some numbers surrounding the issue of identity cards from Telegraph:
From 2007, people renewing passports would be issued with an ID card and would have to pay £77 at current prices. At present, passports cost £42.
Identity cards may also be combined with driving licences at a cost of £73 instead of £38.
The cards on their own would cost £35, but 16-year-olds would receive them free. The elderly and people on low incomes would pay £10.
The charge would cover the cost of biometric identifiers, such as iris prints, fingerprints or facial recognition, taken from everyone wanting to travel abroad or to drive.
More than 40 million Britons have a passport and about 35 million hold a driving licence. As each comes up for renewal the personal details would be entered on a national identity register and the new document combined with an ID card.
The £3 billion scheme would also cover 4.5 million foreign nationals resident in Britain.
Once about 80 per cent of the population has the cards, a decision would be taken making it compulsory to produce the document to access public services such as the NHS, or to get a job or claim benefits.
The Telegraph’s leading editorial is about ID cards. It sums up David Blunkett’s ‘sneaky’ strategy to force them onto the British populace.
So David Blunkett has come up with an ingenious compromise. He proposes to introduce an elaborate ID card scheme, but without making it compulsory in the first phase. A National Identity Register will record biometric details of the population. Thousands of machines will be installed to read the new ID cards, paid for by employers, the NHS and whoever else wants them. Individuals will also have to pay when they apply for new passports or driving licences. Mr Blunkett apparently hopes that people will hardly notice the £3 billion cost, at least as long as the scheme remains voluntary and is phased in over a decade or more.
What is the point of inserting a “draft Bill” into the Queen’s Speech? What is the point of an ID card that is not compulsory? If America and the European Union are requiring biometric passports, what is the point of confusing that technical problem with the highly political issue of ID cards? Why should a government that has hitherto ignored civil liberties now respect them in the case of ID cards?
Quite.
The news today seem to be full of ‘juicy goodness’. And yes, that is sarcasm. Not only ID cards loom on the horizon at a £40 pound a pop, hold the civil liberties, but another ‘venerable’ British instutition, the BBC is attacking your wallet. Next April, the TV license that finances the BBC is to increase to £121 ($194) a year.
Ms Jowell has already insisted the BBC’s core public service output would be protected for at least 10 to 15 years.
This settlement is designed to enable the BBC to provide a strong and distinctive schedule of high quality programmes and remain at the forefront of broadcasting technology.
Or perhaps help them pay for more ‘coverage policemen’ to monitor their bias.
Today the Home Secretary, David Blunkett pushes on with his ‘scheme’ to introduce identity cards to Britain despite considerable opposition from two senior Cabinet colleagues, Gordon Brown and Jack Straw. But Tony’s behind him, so they don’t count. Natch.
It might be amusing to watch the man’s pathetic stumble down the Orwellian path, if not for the fact that his totalitarian impulses have a profound impact on freedom and life in this country. And, of course, his actions do nothing to address immigration and welfare fraud, two of the poster-issues for Big Blunkett’s campaign. Not that I want him to do anything about that either, apart from to get the f*** out of that too. But I digress.
The Telegraph article linked above talks about unveiled plans for a new national identity card with his [Blunkett’s] most forceful argument yet in favour of the scheme. I would expect them to reproduce or at least hint at the ‘most forceful argument yet’ in the article. This is all I found:
For a long time, we have relied on minimal internal controls and strong external borders – this is no longer enough. An ID card is not a luxury or a whim – it is a necessity.
I know some people believe there is a sinister motive behind the cards; that they will be part of a Big Brother state. This is wrong.
Only basic information will be held on the ID card database – such as your name, address, birthday and sex. It will not have details of religion, political beliefs, marital status or your health records.
Indeed, that is so not Big Brother, you Big Blunkett.
White Rose has a post or two about this as well as a link to the official Home Office document (pdf).
I have received the official document produced by the Home Office and presented to the Parliament this month, outlining the stages of the plan to introduce identity card in Britain. It is called Identity Cards The Next Steps.
You will find a permanent link to the document (pdf) on the right in the links section.
The BBC has appointed a “Middle East policeman” to oversee its coverage of the region amid mounting allegations of anti-Israeli bias.
Malcolm Balen, a former editor of the Nine O’Clock News, has been recruited in an attempt to improve the corporation’s reporting of the Middle East and its relationship with the main political players. Mr Balen, who left the BBC three years ago, will work full-time with the official title of “senior editorial adviser”.
Another way to describe this is the expression ‘putting a Band-Aid on a gaping wound’. Yeah, that will fix it.
|
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.
|
