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]
|
The government is now proscribing two successor organisations of Al-Mujahiroun. These are Al-Ghurabaa and the Saved Sect, two cloaks for the continued radicalisation and recruitment of Muslims on British soil. However, they are not being banned because they pose a threat to our security, but for the glorification of terror.
Al-Ghurabaa and the Saved Sect are the first two organisations to be banned under new laws outlawing the glorification of terrorism.
John Reid, the Home Secretary, laid an order in Parliament making it a criminal offence for a person to belong to or encourage support for either group.
It will also be illegal to arrange meetings in their support or to wear clothes or carry articles in public indicating support for either group.
One can oppose this ban on utilitarian grounds: the individuals who organise these groups will merely band together and continue their activities under a different guise. If the symbols or pickets are written in Urdu or Arabic, what policeman or member of the public could ever understand the acts that they were glorifying. Such a placard may as well state “Ronaldo forever”. The practicality of this ban is in grave doubt. At best, there is a slender chance that it may hinder the recruitment of those we should fear most: white Muslims who can walk unhindered and cause the greatest headache for the security services
But utilitarian arguments trade on the ground that the prohibitionists choose to stand upon. No matter how much we may oppose the precepts of these two groups, proscription is wrong. Liberty includes allowing the supporters of terrorist acts to stand up and air their views for all to witness. If they are not linked to acts of violence, and do not step beyond the boundaries of our traditional laws on incitement, who are we to gag and silence those we do not wish to hear. Security is not bought by stopping your ears or allowing the state to stop them for you. You cannot rely upon your own vigilance in identifying those who pose a threat to you, once the state has silenced them and you.
Paul Routledge in the Mirror (not a permalink, sorry) offers a follow up to the “Bollocks to Blair” story covered here by Brian the other day:
“Getting fined worked,” he says. “I had only sold two before the police came. Once word got round, people took pity on me and everyone wanted one. I ended up selling 375.”
But more scarily…
The cops asked for the shirt seller’s eye colour, shoe size and National Insurance number to keep track of him “in case he reoffended”.
Once you know that, you know what the fuzz are up to – building a national database of people they don’t like.
Well that we knew. In fact the government is building a database of everybody just in case it might not like them – or might have some reason to ‘assist’ them personally (as a matter of ‘enabling’ a more ‘active citizenship,’ you understand) by telling them what to do – at any time in the future.
For myself I’m only surprised the cops did not take careful note of the brand of footware, and take his footprints for the national footprint database, which they have recently acquired the power to do – I kid you not. Or perhaps they did…
John Lettice in The Register calmly points out how so much ‘anti-terrorist’ activity and supposed ‘terrorist threat’ arises from the dogs of war chasing their own tails:
Real terror cases and claimed terror plots frequently include plans to attack major public buildings, tall buildings (e.g. Canary Wharf), international airports, and references to CBRN weapons use. Few if any of those that have been “frustrated” or documented so far include convincing plans (even plans, full stop) for actually mounting the attacks, sourcing the deadly poisons and constructing the weapons. Transcripts meanwhile are peppered with lurid and unfeasible attack ideas (often sounding uncannily like the sort of thing a mouthy teenager would say to impress his mates) and references to ‘terror manuals’ which often turn out to be dodgy survivalist poison recipes and/or the ubiquitous Encyclopaedia of Jihad which, as it includes references to tall buildings, is a handy fall-back if the prosecution is in want of a target list.
Read the whole thing here.
Meanwhile we have testimony from an amateur bomber that makes it pretty clear how coherent the ‘mouthy teenager’ Islamist ideology and planning is:
He says non-Muslims of Britain “deserve to be attacked” because they voted for a government which “continues to oppress our mothers, children, brothers and sisters in Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq and Chechnya.”
Jabbing his finger emphatically, he warns: “What have you witnessed now is only the beginning of a string of attacks that will continue and become stronger until you pull your forces out of Afghanistan and Iraq and until you stop your financial and military support to America and Israel.”
(From The Guardian)
This quote no longer appears on the BBC site. Maybe they think it is somehow persuasive. But the misconceptions that Blair’s government can have any influence on the Russians in Chechnya, that it oppresses (rather than in fact succouring) the Palestinians, or that it provides financial support to either Israel or the US, ought to show how clueless these guys are about the real world. As should the idea that bombing the general population can make any difference to the policy of a state. (What touching faith in democracy!) As should the empty braggadocio of continuing, stronger, attacks. Compare that with what we’ve actually seen: outside the Middle East only wildly sporadic and variable isolated actions.
Unfortunately, if there’s anything more stupid than Mr Tanweer it is the fear-frenzy of the mainstream media. What has been continuing and strengthening is fuss and panic. A fevered but entirely vacuous piece by Gordon Correra, BBC Security Correspondent says: “Shehzad Tanweer’s videotape provides more evidence linking the London bombers to al-Qaeda.” Er, no it does not. It provides evidence for the not very shocking hypotheses that videotapes made for purposes of self-satisfaction can travel almost anywhere in a year, that post production is cheap and easy these days, and that the chief function of ‘al-Qaeda’ is as a brand-name. Mr Correra has spent too much time reading ‘security’ briefings and too little considering celebrity sex tapes. A clip in a video package of someone drawing a circle on a map has more worldwide effect than any physical activity in a real place, just as watching Paris Hilton, et al., has led to more considerably more sexual stimulation than they could ever have achieved personally.
This isn’t a clash of civilisations; it is a clash of fantasists. It is just a pity that both sides have some capacity to do real harm to the peaceful lives of non-players.
Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.
– found on the WAGC website.
(hat-tip to commenter Marcy Quice)
Driving through Adelaide this morning, I idly turned my radio on, not something I normally do. But I happened to hear the South Australian police minister explaining to a couple of bemused hosts that the government here had made the possession of crossbows illegal. The radio hosts were bemused, not so much because of yet another assault on the tattered remains of Australian liberty, but because crossbows hardly seem like a problem hereabouts. It is not like you see gangs of youths roaming the streets with crossbows, after all.
The minister explained that there was a case in New South Wales a few years back and the government was keen to clear up ‘loose ends’. Apparently you can still possess one if you can prove you have a ‘lawful use’ for it; the Australian notion of liberty is that you are free as long as you enjoy the good grace of the powers that be.
Youths are hardly likely to be carrying crossbows, but they may well be carrying knives. I read this morning’s Daily Telegraph and came across an op-ed calling for a crackdown on knives, which are becoming a serious problem. Going by some of the comments to that op-ed, it’s a fairly popular idea with the ‘Torygraph’s’ readers as well. To be fair, Shaun Bailey does point the finger at the weakness of the criminal justice system, which is causing young people to take to knife ownership with such enthusiasm.
However, he also blames ‘culture’, which sounds to me like the old leftist excuse whenever someone did the wrong thing; that ‘society is to blame’.
We need to look at the material that youngsters have rammed down their throats every day. Magazines such as Zoo, Nuts and MaxPower. Programmes and films such as World Wrestling Entertainment, Get Rich or Die Trying, and MTV, City Gangster flicks and the whole music culture in general. If we want our youngsters to stop being violent, we need to stop showing them violent material, especially so early in their development. As a colleague said to me, the music industry is “peddling death to our children”.
I am certainly no expert on ‘popular culture’, but I would question the idea that ‘culture’ forces anything on young people. Cultural industries like magazines and music and television programs really are businesses just like any others; they have to respond to what the market is asking for. The point is that cultural industries are a lagging indicator, not a leading one.
What would change the culture is a change in society so that perpetrators of criminal behaviours face the full consequence of their actions; I suspect that would have a far greater impact on ‘youth culture’ then any ‘initiative’ to meddle with our culture; or to take away from lawful citizens their legitimate right to defend themselves. Which is where sloppy thinking like Shaun Bailey’s op-ed will take us to.
It appears that so-called “animal rights” thugs’ targetting of scientists and attempted intimidation of investors has backfired, at least in terms of trying to win around public opinion to their cause. Well, it is true that the majority of Britons loathe such groups, but I don’t think these folk are really concerned about winning hearts and minds as so much working out their own damaged psychological problems through a “cause” that gives them a sense of power and fame. The sadness of it all is that the case for advancing animal welfare – hardly a trivial issue – gets lost in the noise. For all that I am an unapologetic meat-eater, I certainly think everything practical should be done to minimise suffering of animals. In fact, one of the great things about growing advances in the fields of biotech, genetic engineering and the like is that it reduces the need for animal testing, possibly removing it altogether.
Green terrorism is not something cooked up by science fiction. It is all too real and threatens immense damage to our economic and material wellbeing. Maybe the famously sentimental British animal-loving public are getting the point.
The BBC mentioned a small section of something I said to one of their reporters on the subject of more armed police in the UK. I am somewhat bemused to find myself nominated by the Beeb as a spokesman for the Libertarian Alliance, a worthy organization for sure but although I am a member, I do not speak on behalf of it.
The broader sense of my remarks to the journalist was not that I oppose the notion of armed police per se but that I supported the right of everyone to be armed. However my reservation regarding more plod with guns in the UK was that the shooting of that hapless Brazilian demonstrated that when they use force in error, far from a policy of transparency and accountability, all we will get is lies and fabricated accounts of what occured. As a result, the fact the institution which fosters and protects these liars deserves neither our support nor more guns as they clearly cannot be trusted with the ones they have.
Moreover the notion of ‘what has gone wrong with society’ was referring to the idea that does not seem reasonable to leave fixing societies ills to the very people and institutions which are most responsible for those ills… i.e. the regulatory state, and that includes its armed officers.
The government provides free guidelines and advice which allows business to assess the risk of a terrorist attack. The website, “Continuity Central“, released a publication today entitled “Protecting Against Terrorism” summarising guidelines for businesses. This was not a public relations exercise by our political masters but a common sense response to requests from those businesses that have thought about the possibility of a terrorist attack.
The Security Service, in partnership with Home Office and Cabinet Office, have updated existing protective security guidance for organisations with a duty of care for others. This guidance, entitled ‘Protecting Against Terrorism’ has been published in response to requests from businesses to have a hard copy version of the guidance on the website
Yet, the majority of small businesses must be unaware that there are free guidelines of this nature. Has this government, renowned for its expertise in public relations, promoted a booklet that would save lives? Was this a press release that the mainstream media responsibly reported because they understood that smaller enterprises do not belong to organisations with the resources to monitor such subjects?
The release of relevant publications is a vital opportunity to raise awareness of the preventive actions that organisations and individuals can take to mitigate a terrorist attack. This press release sunk without trace on a day when the Home Office launched a campaign for reducing forced marriages amongst immigrant groups, announced new funding for racial equality and community cohesion and issued new regulations on the work of the Criminal Records Bureau. All admirable goals for some I am sure but I would argue that they are of less importance than raising security awareness amongst small businesses and the self-employed
You may rest assured that New Labour has its priorities right: the politically correct client bank must come first.
U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney wounded a fellow shooter of quail in an accident. Well, I guess it shows what a gulf now exists between the U.S. government and our own. I cannot imagine a single senior Labour politician who would spend time out shooting. (Imagine John Prescott doing it. Actually, don’t). The story reminds me of another deputy leader, the late William Whitelaw (a decorated soldier in the Normandy WW2 campaign), who managed to fire some buckshot at someone during a grouse shooting meeting in the Scottish highlands.
Many politicians in the past have enjoyed the pastime of shooting game. Many MPs were landed gentry, who could not wait to get out of smelly London in the summer months and, once the game season started in August, would blast away at hapless birds, bagging them in prodigious quantities. And several paid the price. Robert Peel, Prime Minister in the 1840s, suffered a nasty buzzing in one of his ears after a gun went off too close. Salisbury and Churchill shot game, as did Macmillan and Alec Douglas Home. Across the big pond there was no greater hunter of game, of course, than Teddy Roosevelt.
All that tradition is fading out. I cannot imagine Tory leader David Cameron shooting game (imagine how that would jar with his trendy image) although his ancestors probably nailed whole flocks of pheasants in their time.
Anyway, the lesson of all this is that if you find yourself in the company of a politician holding a shotgun, stand well behind.
“Perhaps the meek shall inherit the Earth, but they’ll do it in very small plots . . . about 6′ by 3′.”
Robert Heinlein, quoted at this excellent legal website with stacks of quotations about self defence.
One of our team brought this bit of aviation humour to my attention.
It is guaranteed to give you a bit of a smile.
MP Andrew Dismore has blocked attempts to clarify the law on self defence in Britain being proposed by MP Anne McIntosh, because he thinks it would be ‘vigilante law’.
Well I have thought for some time now that non-state use of force in defence of life, limb and private property is exactly what is needed in this country and to make no apology for robustly defending what is yours. Take the law into your own hands because it is indeed yours to take, not Andrew Dismore’s to deny. I realise that if you are old, infirm or a small woman living alone, the fact the state has disarmed you means you have no option whatsoever but to surrender your property and just pray the criminal(s) will not harm you, but those of us still physically able should be encouraged to use whatever weapons they can find at hand to assert some self ownership. Just do not make the mistake of calling the Police in Britain after the fact if you can possibly avoid it as they work for the likes of Andrew Dismore and are not there to serve you.
You may not have the legal right to fight back effectively, but you will always have the moral right to defend yourself and what is yours. Look at it this way, if you are the only one left alive after some son of a bitch breaks into your house, well, that means it is going to be hard for him to sue you or contradict your version of events, doesn’t it. If they do make it out, then just clean up the mess and deny everything.
Vigilante law? As so many members of the political class in Britain leave us with little alternative, I am all for it. When the state fails in its most fundamental duty, it is time for society to remember whose law it really is. If you are able to, fight back, just keep in mind you will be fighting back against the state as well and act accordingly when the plod turns up a few hours or days later to ‘protect’ you.
|
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.
|
