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]
|
Let me say this upfront: I was not Charlie Kirk’s biggest fan, nor was I a bitter detractor. I saw him in cynical terms and still do, as an ally of convenience on some issues, an opponent on others. As I am very much in favour of free speech, I am perfectly happy to see his image raised as a political icon, a literal free speech martyr.
Being a family man with much to live for, I venture with confidence Charlie Kirk would have rather not been assassinated. But nevertheless having been murdered by some trans-fixated politically motivated lunatic, Kirk is perhaps looking down from the heaven he believed in feeling vindicated, pleased that at least his death mightily serves a cause he strongly believed in.
I do find it interesting to see this AI generated meme appearing, showing political activist Charlie Kirk and Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska…
Both were murdered whilst on video. Iryna Zarutska was stabbed by a racially motivated serial-offender a couple weeks before Charlie Kirk was assassinated. Kirk spoke out about her murder, horrified by the vile senseless crime captured in slow motion for all to see. And of course he cared, Iryna was murdered by a US national in the United States of America.
But Kirk was not keen on supporting Ukraine against mass-murderous Russia, which was what had driven Iryna to become a refugee in the USA. Had she died in Ukraine in a Russian missile strike on an apartment block, her passing would not warrant a mention, just another nameless victim of the Russian imperialism Kirk would rather not see a single US cent spent opposing.
Charlie Kirk was deeply religious, claiming this was his strongest motivation, which was probably true. He was also a nationalist, and in that particular Gott mit uns strain of American Christianity, maybe Charlie Kirk did not see the tension between his indifference to the victims of the war in Ukraine and his Christianity, possibly seeing the narrow interests of the USA and God as being one and the same. But perhaps my own aggressively secular sensibilities are showing.
So, I am happy to see him exploited as a free speech martyr, even though I did not particularly like the man, and I am confident Charlie Kirk would have been perfectly ok with that too.
It has been interesting to see the predictably alarmed reactions to the huge march in London organised by Tommy Robinson et al.
One remark I heard on a video was “The most alarming aspect of the event was just how normal the vast majority of the marchers were… the sort of people you’d meet in a country pub, or at a half-time queue for the loo or a concert.”
At first, my reaction to hearing that was “surely the normality of the crowd should have made the march less alarming”… but then I realised the marchers not being stereotypical bovver boys makes plausibly labelling the demonstration as “far-right” vastly harder.
Yes, I can see how that might alarm some people as the magic words racist, fascist, and far-right lose their power from years of overuse and the fact there were reggae bands and alarmingly black faces in the crowd.
Imagine facing your nation’s Supreme Court for the “crime” of sharing a Bible verse. On October 30, that’s the reality for Päivi Räsänen, a Finnish grandmother, medical doctor, and parliamentarian. Her soon-to-be seven-year ordeal began in 2019, when she questioned her church’s support for Helsinki Pride and posted a Bible verse on X. That single tweet triggered 13 hours of police interrogation, two full trials, and now a third prosecution under Finland’s “hate speech” law.
Räsänen’s case might sound like an exclusively European story — but it also serves as a warning about the growing threat of censorship coming from the EU. While someone living outside of Europe might assume they are exempt from the troubling wave of censorship spreading across the continent, that assumption is dangerously mistaken.
– Lorcan Price
“Unfortunately, the current Labour government, like every unpopular administration before it, has reached for the oldest trick in the book, persecuting the law-abiding. Sunak did it with smoking bans and talk of national service, Starmer is doing it with the motorist. The plan includes mandatory eye tests for older drivers, stripping pensioners of their independence and dumping the cost onto the already-buckling adult social care system when Dad now needs a taxi just to get to the shops. It lowers the drink-drive limit from 35 to 22 micrograms, despite Britain already having the second-lowest drink-driving deaths in Europe. There is even talk of slashing the national speed limit in the countryside to 50 mph — a direct attack on rural life, where the car is not a luxury but a necessity.”
– John Hardy
One of the problems with certain types of new regulation is getting them enforced. If the cops are too busy going around pinching people for saying mean things on social media, how are they going to enforce some of this nonsense?
Unfortunately, Sir Keir Starmer, who is not exactly loved in the rural parts of the UK, is still in thrall, as far as I can tell, to a form of the Precautionary Principle when it comes to risk and safety. And he may think that he might as well stick it to rural people who need to use a car as they will be very unlikely to vote for him. There may be a sort of “damn you bastards” reflex here. I recall that he was a fan of lockdowns, and while he remains in power, there is a risk that he’d impose them if international organisations demand it. The authoritarian itch is powerful in “Capt. Hindsight”.
Less negatively, there may be a warped kind of mistaken desire to improve humanity going on here (shades of the old “nudge” issue I wrote about a few days ago, although we are now in open coercion territory.) According to this way of thinking, it is better to pile on costs and inconvenience to everyone if it saves a single life, whether that means cutting rural speed limits, making granddad check his eyes regularly (I have some sympathy for this, after all, pilots are regularly checked out) and reducing alcohol. There is a sort of cost-benefit analysis that can be done to figure out what the unintended consequences of certain measures are. Unfortunately, fatal/near-fatal car accidents make for horrible headlines (and they are horrible, period), while the increasing drudgery and cost of living in a heavily regulated country does not translate so well into news stories. That is a factor that explains the rise of Big Government more generally: the whole issue of “what is seen and what is unseen”, as Bastiat described it.
All this heavy-handedness is is a reason, I think, why we need more of the pro-safety elements at work to come from insurance. If an elderly person does not get their eyes tested and they are involved in a crash, or they don’t have tyres with a minimum grip, or they haven’t had an MOT test, then that means an insurance policy does not pay out, etc. Let those who make a living out of correct risk assessment drive such things (pardon the pun) and not a political class that seems to crave this sort of micro-management of our waking hours.
But then as long as we have “our NHS” socialist model of healthcare, it will always be argued, by those of a communitarian bent, that those who fail to minimise risks to others impose unwanted costs on innocent third parties, and to “save” the NHS, such regulations, however far-reaching, must be enforced. But this, in my view, is an argument against socialised medicine, not for increasing regulation.
There’s a pattern: the foolishness unfolding under the Starmer government often gestated under the previous Conservative ones. The Online Safety Act is probably the most egregious example (although some Tories attacked it at the time, to no avail). Another might be that the UK embarked on the idea of offloading the Chagos Islands – a strategic blunder that may yet be countered by the Trump administration – under James Cleverly (then foreign minister). (Cleverly has, with some level of brass neck, since denounced the Chagos fiasco.)
Another example is creating a football regulator. The UK pioneered football (aka soccer) more than a century ago, and it has become a global phenomenon. The English Premier League is a big and profitable brand (judging by all the people I see watching games on TV when I am on business trips in Singapore, New York or Dubai). Yes, there have been controversies about players’ taxes, and crowd behaviour. But that’s what HM Revenue & Customs and the police are there for. But apparently the “beautiful game” requires supervision from a regulator. The usual warnings about “regulatory capture” apply, and one assumes that Conservatives might have been aware of such a risk. But no. The former administration proposed it. And unsurprisingly, the incoming Labour government liked the idea, because it likes regulation almost as an end in itself.
In the fag-end of the last government, Chancellor of the Exchequer Jeremy Hunt signalled that if re-elected, he would scrap the UK’s resident non-domicile tax system and replace it with a residency-based system. Hunt probably thought he was being clever in trying to “shoot the fox” of Labour, which has railed about non-doms for years. But he could have changed the narrative and challenged the economic illiteracy of those who want to hammer wealthy foreigners. Instead he conceded to Labour the terms of debate, which a good general never does.
Another case: shotgun licensing. The UK now requires that an application for a shotgun requires two referees, not one as before. This move was initiated under the past Tory government, reacting to a case of a shooting in Plymouth, southwest UK. While designed to stop problems, it also makes it that much harder for a farmer, for example, to obtain one to shoot game and vermin with such a weapon.
And so on and so on. Hence why you hear people refer to Labour and the Conservatives as a sort of “uni-party”. Even when that is a bit unfair, because differences genuinely exist, there is an edge to the criticism because it does speak to a genuine problem. The Tories contain a lot of people who are at base paternalists in how they think of the role of government, and also share some of the same post-colonial cringes of those on the Labour side. There is also, arguably, a failure of nerve and self-confidence that goes very deep.
There is a story in the UK media (see here for the Daily Mail version) about how local residents in the Bournemouth area of southern England have banded together to form “vigilante” groups – working with local police, it should be noted – to deal with crime.
When temperatures hit the mid-30s last month, brawls broke out in broad daylight, while a woman in her late teens was raped in a beachside public toilet just days later leading to the arrest of a man who has now been released on bail.
And many residents have had enough, with more than 200 volunteers including security professionals and first aiders signing up to the Safeguard Force to tackle the tourist hotspot’s descent into lawlessness.
The group, set up by local businessman Gary Bartlett, aims to ‘protect the most vulnerable in our town – especially women, children and the elderly’.
They have already raised more than £3,000 through a GoFundMe campaign to buy body cameras, stab vests and radios.
It would be easy to focus on the continued degradation and decline of the UK, the nastiness, nihilism, scruffiness and genuine shitty state of it all. Reeves. Starmer, etc. But I want to take a slightly different tack.
The tack – hauling in the mainsail, lads! – is that this shows that when pushed sufficiently, people can and do band together to bring certain outcomes about, and seek to frustrate others. A few weeks ago I re-read, after many years, Alexis de Tocqueville’s famous book, Democracy in America. He noted the enthusiasm with which American citizens formed associations of all kinds, from the frivolous to the deadly serious. Around the time he wrote that book (in two volumes, the first was completed in the 1830s, the second in the 1840s) the UK had gone through the experiment, under Sir Robert Peel, of forming official police forces, starting with the Metropolitan Police, aka “The Met”. His principles of how a police force should operate are still referred to. In the 18th and 19th centuries there were societies for the “prosecution of felons” – a classic case of a private provider of a “public good”.
There is, in most developed countries, a sort of social compact: The State will take on the role of seeking to catch and deter criminals, and in return, the citizens will abjure the freedom to take the law into their own hands. This compact has to work to a certain level of effectiveness. When police become distracted by politically motivated rubbish, such as “non-crime hate incidents” and so forth, and morale is damaged (many coppers have left the forces, because they are angry about such nonsense), you get a problem. Crime clear-up rates are low; I come across complaints that people rarely bother to log crimes out of cynicism that not much will be done. And then there are worries that crimes against persons and property appear to be treated more leniently than fashionable concerns. Result: the compact is fraying to the point of breakdown.
And so we have what is happening in Bournemouth. This will spread. I can expect to read more articles about people learning self-defence, increased community patrols, and controversies about what the limits are in being able to enforce laws. (It is worth remembering that at this point, it is legally difficult for UK citizens to use lethal force in self-defence.)
Nature abhors a vacuum, in public policy as much as anything else. There are going to be consequences. Edmund Burke’s “little platoons” are going to be more in evidence.
News comes to me that an advert, a video in the style of a musical, for something called Coinbase, which I understand is some form of crypto set up, which is why the advert has been banned, and about which I know nothing more, (and this is not advice or recommendation on financial matters) is not permitted in the UK by the regulator, OFCOM. Not that I doubt that OFCOM are interpreting the regulations correctly. That the advert might be termed mildly satirical would be a fair description, and take a look at the shop names. It’s almost an updated Oliver Twist. Has it been made by people familiar with modern Britain? I would say so.
As Burns said in his ode ‘To a louse’:’O wad some Power the giftie gie us / To see oursels as ithers see us!’.
Thanks to comedian Andrew Lawrence for the tip.
There are too many laws and too many policemen… police persons. Don’t you ever feel that? Every new regulation diminishes us. We’ve got to the point where we do more harm than good.
– Inspector Bert Lynch, Z-Cars (last ever episode), 1978. The episode was written by Troy Kennedy Martin who had – appropriately enough – created the long-running series in the first place.
War Footing Latest, against you that is, not the Russians
– Think Defence
The BBC says “According to Ofcom, platforms must not host, share or permit content encouraging use of VPNs to get around age checks.”
I encourage the use a VPN to get around all state abridgement of people’s right to access the internet, including age checks. Say no to police state Britain, not to mention a VPN enhances your security online.
The free and open internet has now ceased to exist in the UK. Since Friday, anyone in Britain logging on to social media will have been presented with a censored, restricted version – a ‘safe’ internet, to borrow the UK government’s language. Vast swathes of even anodyne posts are now blocked for the overwhelming majority of users.
The Online Safety Act was passed by the last Conservative government and backed enthusiastically by Labour. Both parties insisted it is necessary to protect children. Supposedly, its aim is to shield them from pornography, violence, terrorist material and content promoting self-harm. Age-verification checks, we were assured, would ensure that children would not be exposed to inappropriate content, but adults could continue using the internet as they please. Yet as we have seen over the past few days, on many major tech platforms, UK-based adults are being treated as children by default, with supposedly ‘sensitive’ content filtered from everyone’s view.
– Fraser Myers
Police state Britain needs nothing less than a revolution.
The High Court in England & Wales has handed down a judgment declaring that the Chief Constable of Northumbria Police – a force covering Northumberland, Newcastle and Sunderland, (basically the upper part of north-east England) acted irrationally in letting her officers participate in and support a ‘Pride’ event in 2024.
In short, the issue was that the Claimant (‘Plaintiff’ to our friends over the Ocean), a ‘gender-critical lesbian’, objected to members of the local Police Force Force and/or members of the Force associating themselves with the views of supporters of gender ideology and transgender activists by actively participating in the ‘Northern Pride Event in Newcastle in July 2024. The Claimant’s belief is that as a person who is ‘gender-critical’, she believes that a person’s sex is an immutable characteristic and that “gender ideology”, which recognises a person’s gender identity, is “wrong and dangerous“. To cut a long story short, the learned judge, Mr Justice Linden, upheld the complaint. Putting it simply, the judge looked at the Chief Constable’s reasons for authorising her officers to participate in the Pride Event and found them to be irrational, i.e. there was no way that the decision could have been taken by a rational Chief Constable.
The crux of the case was that police officers have a duty to be impartial and to appear to be impartial, the Chief Constable decided that the duty to be ‘impartial’ was subject to the ‘public sector equality duty’ (a general duty used wrongly here as a ‘catch-all’ to justify any deviation from the norms of acceptable conduct), but the judge said that it was the other way around, the duty to be impartial is an absolute duty, and the ‘public sector equality duty’ is a duty to have regard to the need to achieve equality, rather than the need to achieve it. The Equality cart was put before the Impartiality Horse. At the end of the judgment is a rather stinging finding about the Defendant, the Chief Constable, in paragraph 136:
I have already explained that the Defendant’s reasoning did not provide a rational basis for her decision. After careful consideration I have also concluded that the effect of the activities challenged by the Claimant was sufficiently obvious for the Defendant’s decision to be outside the range of reasonable decisions open to her.
I should point out for our readers that in England & Wales, judges are appointed by a commission, and the notion of a judge being akin to an ‘Obama judge’, a ‘Biden judge’ or a ‘Trump appointee’ is alien here, but of course the exalted echelons of higher legal circles contain in the main the sort of people who, holding a conference on law to all comers, would see nothing untoward in sneering at a Conservative government’s legal difficulties or Brexit, and the ‘Overton window’ in the legal community is more like a pinprick hole in a camera obscura, but that is not the point. What I would say is that in England & Wales, the more senior judges will tend to stick to the law and this may produce apparently surprising results, like this case.
So what happens now? Well in respect of last year’s event, nothing other than this court’s finding. However, this judgment, although from a judge who is in the first-level of the English courts, amounts to a legal ‘slap in the face with a wet fish‘ to activist police officers and will no doubt embolden those who seek to reduce or dilute the endless stream of ‘agitprop’ we see coming from our police forces, and to an extent in the wider public sector. It also helps to show that there is a difference between the activist version of the law and reality. Will the Police and Crime Commissioner for Northumbria take any steps like asking the irrational Chief Constable to resign? Well, I’d be more surprised by that than the Second Coming.
|
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.
|
