The evil of PAF C23

Back in the bad old days of slavery in the United States, there was a thing called the 'Underground railroad' which spirited escaped slaves over the border into the anti-slavery (Abolished in 1834) British run Province of Canada amongst other places. Many into Ontario, although a number of notable families who can trace their lineage back to those days ended up in BC to make their mark in a free (ish) country.

The 'railroad' hit its peak during the US Civil War years with estimates of up to 100,000 freed slaves being bandied about, although sources indicate that the successful number is closer to 30,000, or even as low as 6,000. Considering the network of safe houses was mostly informal, the lowest figure seems the most likely.

The reason I bring this up is the continuing furore about 'secret courts' and forced adoptions in the UK, the most high profile of which is the recently leaked case of Vicky Haigh, which may only be the tip of a very large and polluted iceberg. From what I can see, various UK Social Service departments have been operating against basic human rights laws, and the Police have been complicit. Although in their defence I'd say that the Police are fed a line, and are bound to comply with the demands of Social Services. All Social Services have to do is make an allegation, and the blind juggernaut of Police and Courts rumbles into action.

The heart of the problem lies with PAF C23, which sets out 'targets' for adoptions and care orders. At this point I blink heavily and suppress the need to go "WTF?" How can you set targets for Social Service driven adoptions like a commercial sales operation? What complete fucking genius came up with that crazy idea? What affectioned time pleaser first mooted Key Performance Indicators for adoption? Which sectionable bunch of cretins put it into action? Who insist that the practice continues? Ofsted, that's who. I discussed the matter this morning with Mrs S, who opined that giving Social Workers 'adoption targets' was a licence for corruption. To quote from the UK Parliament early day motion;

Ofsted continues to put pressure on local authorities to increase the number of adoptions; recognises that the only significant way in which this can be done is to increase the adoptions of babies and toddlers

Such is the motivation for stealing unweaned children from their parents almost literally at birth. One of the cited reasons for such evil is an unverifiable 'risk of emotional abuse'. Now being a parent, I know that low level 'emotional abuse' is pretty much a two way street in any family. I've been on the receiving end, and tried very hard not to pay back in kind (Not always possible). And it's a pretty flimsy excuse for such a draconian measure.

There's also the accusation that certain people are using the Foster Care system as a regular source of income. At twenty thousand pounds a year per child, all you've got to do is foster two or three and it's easy street, at least financially speaking. Decline the unruly teens (Who the unscrupulous would just dump back into the 'care' system) and go for the toddlers. Three children, and you can live quite comfortably. Mrs S and I brought our two up on a net income of almost half that. We never starved.

Some families under threat of such child theft leave the UK and often flounder in new circumstances. Others, like Miss Haigh, have a wide circle of friends and associates overseas who have perhaps assisted her with tips about where to find accommodation, shielding her identity / location from officialdom where necessary. Others may seek practical assistance from Ian Josephs 'Forced adoption' website. Although I think Ian could do with a little assistance in creating a more user friendly site. Too many words Ian. It needs restructuring into something a little more practical and user friendly.

Here in Canada, we are still recovering from the scandal of 'Residential schools' where First Nations children were taken to Borstal like establishments to be 'educated'. The fallout is still making money for various ambulance chasing lawyers, who up until 2009 had big billboards up on Highway 19 north of town with wording like "Victim of Residential School system?" The scandal has cost the Canadian Taxpayer not far short of a billion dollars;

Total Compensation as of March 01, 2011: CAD$960,247,668

Taken from the original source here. When the scandal finally breaks (As break it must, injunctions or no) in the UK, guess who will be picking up the tab? Got it in one - Taxpayers

Perhaps the powers that be should recognise that, like with slavery, people (Even small and helpless ones) are not property.

Although I won't be holding my breath for that penny to drop.

Cross posted at Orphans of Liberty. Or rather not.

Hate sites and the law

The new Harper Government here in Canada may be about to make rather a large mistake. In their proposed new crime bill C-51 there is a clause that will effectively make it an offence for a Canadian web site owner to link to a 'hate' site, or one deemed to have 'offensive' material. From the Parliamentary publication here;

2.1.1.1 Hate Propaganda (Clauses 4 and 5)
Hate propaganda offences must be committed against an “identifiable group.” Clause 4 of the bill adds “national origin” to the definition of “identifiable group.”8

Clause 5 of the bill provides that the offences of public incitement of hatred and wilful promotion of hatred may be committed by any means of communication and include making hate material available, by creating a hyperlink that directs web surfers to a website where hate material is posted, for example.

Okay. I can see a few potential issues here. As one who occasionally writes "Fuck" or in an exasperated expostulation "What the fucking hell were they thinking of?" does this make this blog a 'hate' site? A number of the web sites and blogs I link to regularly use pejorative language on various topics. They also express what some (but not all) might call 'extreme' views on various issues. Which I link to because it's interesting / howlingly ridiculous / amusingly apposite. I cannot control their content, and if that content changes without my knowledge I have no say in the matter. If I might not wholly agree with someone's point of view or the way they express it, does that mean I have to remove all reference from this or any other blog I contribute to?

Such a policy is unworkable, and here's why. Even the most vaguely web savvy person knows about the Wayback machine where everything is laid bare. So if the authorities were to send me a nasty email threatening prosecution about such an errant link or post, even if said 'hate' link or post is taken down, it's already too late. The material will still be available for as long as those cacheing servers exist. Seeing as they are based in the USA (as are the servers upon which this blog is based) and all over the world, such a threatened prosecution would be pointless. I couldn't really comply, even if I wanted to. The offending material would remain.

It's worth noting that the authorities in Canada have tried to prosecute bloggers in the past over 'hate' material, one 'hate' blogger has even done time pre trial, but I understand no prosecutions have taken the offending content down. All they've actually done is kept some lawyers in work.

The idea of trying to regulate an international medium based on a domestic standard is on a hiding to nothing. Firewalls leak (Great Firewall of China). News gets out (Like from Iran and Syria). The only way to stop people saying things you don't like is to pull the plug entirely. No Internet at all. In today's web enabled world, is that workable?

As far as offensive content goes, my own take is that everyone is entitled to say what they damn well please on their own web space. It is their god given right to make a fool of themselves in a public forum, just as it is my right to ignore, highlight or hold them up for ridicule. The web allows everyone that privilege. In that way it's very democratic. However, if this clause in crime bill C-51 stays, that right of critique goes with it, because linking to 'hate' material, whatever that might be, and for whatever reason, may invite prosecution. Likewise discussing contentious issues regarding other cultures. Debate is essential. Democracy cannot really function without it. And 'hate' is such a very subjective term.

As always, the law of unintended consequences will be found grinning and lurking in the shadows where web related matters are subject to legislation. For example, the bit about 'harassing messages' in clause 11 may end up biting a few credit control companies in the ass. This could get interesting....

Cross posted at Orphans of Liberty.

A day of modestly good news...ah

Having had the experiences with UK Social Services that I have, I'm heartened by the dropping of the planned Child database. Anything that gives these people, a number of whom have some very strange ideas indeed in my personal experience, less power can only be an improvement. The current scandal over the SS trying to seize the unborn child of Trainer and ex-Jockey Vicky Haigh has been quite alarming. Surely that sort of measure should only be applied if a child is in genuine danger, not just because Ms Haigh had a stand up row with her ex at a petrol station. A more sensible decision would have been to drag both parties before the beak and tell them to stay clear if they couldn't stand the sight of each other. Mind you, in my experience, UK Social Services don't always (some never) do sensible. My reflexive response to the statement "I'm a social worker" is generally to nod, smile, and look for the nearest exit without telling them my name.

On a more cheerful note, recent family discussions about the near to medium term, and what the next generation is going to get up to have all centred around Vancouver and the west coast. Youngest is talking about getting Canadian experience for six month after she's graduated to see if she likes it, as is Eldest. However, as a parent, one should always be aware that these are merely discussions. Although preparing contingency plans in case they both decide to turn up on the same day may be a good idea.

There's even more work than of late, so blogging has had to take a back seat. I just don't have the time to do everything.

The bagging of Bin Laden should come as good news to all sides of the religious divide. That is, if the news of his death is not an exaggeration, and not like the famous Nizam of Hydrabad, who was allegedly feeling 'much better' after his widely reported demise. Ironically, Bin Laden's boys have to date reportedly killed more Muslims than any other religious grouping. Funny that, seeing as they apparently want to 'defend Islam' against all us wicked 'Crusaders'. Not that I'm a 'Crusader' myself, my antecedents were all peasant and Yeoman farmers to a man (And woman). None of us C of E, either. As a historical note, most 'Crusaders' were the Templars and Hospitallers, who were driven from the Jerusalem area by the 1300's. Later on these groups were denounced as heretics, murdered and their fortunes plundered by the European Church and Nobles of the time. So the 'crusader' thing is a bit of a reach really.

Just as an observation, without Bin Laden and his cohorts ramming of Airliners into the World Trade Center, we might have been spared a couple of wars. So I for one am not sorry he's been slabbed. In a corner of Hell the fires will be burning a merry little glow of welcoming. The only trouble is, that he's probably inspired a lot more of the suicidal fruitcake fraternity to keep the pointless slaughter going for a while. The cell structure of Al Qaeda will remain without its figurehead, and many more will die for one man's vanity.

Oh well, what the hell, it's Canadian Federal Election day tomorrow, so I shall watch the results come in online, and although I can't vote yet, our local incumbent has my best wishes. She's a good constituency MP, and that buys my vote every time, even if I don't totally agree with her Party's policies.

Points of law

You poor buggers back in the UK may have some cause for a little sigh of relief. The heinous Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, which gave people who should never have that kind of power; to wit, local authorities and social services, the right to snoop into your deepest areas of privacy without requiring any form of justification or evidence. Often for the pettiest of matters. As could have been predicted by a two year old, said powers have been abused. This article from Pinsent Masons Out-Law site brinks a chink of light.

A home office reform is coming which will require permission for such intrusions in the form of a warrant, presumably sworn out before a Judge or Magistrate. Failure to comply will mean up to a fifty thousand quid fine from a body known as the Interception of Communications Commissioner. This will also apply to Telecomms firms. So read those End User Licence Agreements carefully for little snippets about 'gathering data' and other such innocuous phrases which will effectively allow a service provider with a licence to eavesdrop. Although it is worth noting that RIPA allows Telecomms providers to snoop for purposes connected with providing or operating their service, or 'enforcement', which presumably means making sure no one uses their services without stumping up for same. The permission under RIPA to retain your personal details / activity presumably remains unchanged.

While the 'requiring permission' move is a positive step, I'm still of the opinion that RIPA was a typically poorly thought through piece of New Labour legislation which should be axed. That and the Civil Contingencies act, where a UK Government can suspend elections for unspecified periods. Both are, as I have repeatedly blogged, evil and unnecessarily repressive pieces of legislation wide open to abuse.

The row over Super-Injunctions rolls on with a 'for the cheeldren' justification. Although I think that matters before a court should automatically require a ban on mainstream reporting until the case is over with anonymity for Defendant, Victim, and Witnesses. Jurors of course are bound to keep schtum, and rightly face prosecution if they don't. In the case of Parliament, as Parliament forms part of the regulatory mechanism, debate on an issue which would normally be considered Sub Judice should be allowed as a form of oversight. Such a principle, applied with no exemptions might be better than the current mess, where defendants can be stopped from contacting their MP or even mentioning that they are subject to an injunction. You can't tell me that's right.

A third issue, to do with the panic stricken flight cancellations due to last years Mt Unpronounceable eruption, means that even if the powers that be decide to cancel all flights as a wholly unnecessary precautionary measure, the cancellation clause in your travel insurance may not apply. So, no test case. So, even when the 'risk' is an over reaction, there's no redress? Hardly worth stumping up for the extra cover is it?

The next Tolpuddle Martyrs

Back in the real bad old days before protective associations and Trades Unions were allowed to exist. A bunch of 19th Century agricultural labourers in Dorset, so ticked off with their treatment, formed a 'Friendly society', refusing to work for less than a set rate. The leading members of this association were James Brine, James Hammett, George Loveless, James Loveless, Thomas Standfield, and John Standfield. For their 'crime' of standing up for themselves, they were arrested and sentenced to Transportation in 1832. Their trial and sentences were essentially a warping of the law to serve a vested interest, seeing as the legislation forbidding such associations was repealed in 1825 (But what's really new about that, eh?).

History has a tendency to repeat itself in slightly different ways, because the mistakes made have a tendency to be forgotten by those who consider themselves to be in authority. In like fashion I see this 'Lawful rebellion' thing sizing up to be the basis of a similar movement. Of course the Martyrs were only one of many such groups looking to protect themselves from overweening authority, but they put their checkmark in the History box before all others.

In similar fashion, Ranty and his growing band of like minded people are busy using the legal system to fight everything from excessive council tax bills to a parking ticket. Facing arrest, Bankruptcy and other serried consequences, they have picked up the mostly quenched torch of liberty and blown on its embers. I foresee their actions making great changes sometime in the future. So long as they stay on topic and don't alienate people by wittering on about stuff better left in the X-Files.

However, I make this one caveat. It took generations before the Martyrs actions brought about a better life for their heirs and successors. Their beginnings changed the socio economic landscape between employer and employee, master and servant. In some ways for the better. In others, their nascent movement was hijacked by those with a more sinister, destructive political agenda.

To conclude; There is a paradigm shift beginning. Away from the inefficient, incompetent collectivist ideals of the 19th and 20th centuries, perhaps towards a more 'people centric' future where grass roots movements hold the balance of power. I'm not sure where the 'lawful rebellion' movement is going to end up, but I have the distinct feeling that a smart young politician who hitches his coat tails to this particular comet will go far.

Hyper and Super Injunctions?

What sort of legal process is at work here? Picked up at Anna Racoons, this nasty little snippet, where legal injunctions have been granted that not only forbid the injunctee from mentioning it, but also forbid them from asking their Member of Parliament for help? Even to the point where a threat has been made to take the injunctee's children into 'care' if the injunction is breached. Isn't such a threat in itself illegal, no matter who makes it? Not only under the old Common law statue, but also under European Human Rights Law?

It's only over the past few years that we've heard about 'Super' injunctions which forbid mention in the Mainstream (Mostly to do with where idiot footballers are reputed to have parked their willies). Yet forbidding mention in the Houses of Parliament? Is that legal? Surely such an injunction would be a clear breach of Parliamentary Privilege, as we are led to understand it.

This speech by John Hemming MP is most enlightening. Clearly there are some UK 'Limp Dems', who are less limp than others.

Popcorn ready. Another one to watch.

A very English revolution

Seen last night via EU referendum, but I was too tired to comment on: The real English rebellion begins. Albeit a 'lawful' one. 'Arresting' a judge for not confirming that he was 'serving under his oath of office'? What a super wheeze.

I've been getting a lot of traffic from the good Captains site for some time because we share some common ground, ideologically speaking.

Essentially the Captain and his mates are as ticked off as a lot of ex-pats like me (Or should I call myself a refugee?) with the UK political antics of the last twenty years. Yet they have decided to act, and I wish them well. Although my natural cynic looks sidelong at things like the evil civil contingencies act, and the repression it could be used for. Though Ranty and friends are in a state of 'Lawful (not legal) rebellion', the legitimacy of their protest under law may be considered a mere administrative detail when the live ammo is handed out.

Notwithstanding, my own understanding of the state of 'Lawful rebellion' is this; Your sovereign and government repeatedly ignore you, and overturn the law to their own advantage. They perform acts of effective treason against their legal offices; ignore sworn oaths, sign over sovereignty, that sort of thing. Which leaves the dissenting subject one of four options; leave, knuckle under, open revolt, or the more obscure state of 'lawful rebel'.

To become a lawful rebel, there is an old, I think medieval, provision within the law saying that a subject may in protest transfer their alleigence to a 'committee of barons' by serving three affidavits properly witnessed and served. The rest is knowing the difference between a 'law' and a 'statute'. Laws must be observed, but as a 'lawful rebel' you do not have to observe statues. As EU and local authority powers are based in statute, there lies the lawful rebels power. Ranty and friends have all the details.

The knowledge base required to be a lawful rebel is quite extensive, and from what I can see, you have to be pretty sure of your ground. Migraines beckon, methinks. This is an area where even lawyers may fear to tread.

While Mrs S is indisposed, we have got the popcorn out on this one. Being history buffs and very aware of the context of what Ranty and friends are up to, we will be watching with keen interest from the other side of the Atlantic.

I'm given to understand that there are a few folk around Vancouver Island who are giving the 'lawful rebel' thing a try, but the law is a trifle different over here, and the RCMP will have no truck with people drinking and driving, then claiming to be 'lawful rebels' when pulled over. Disregarding Statutes of Contract law is one thing; using it as a license for anti-social behaviour another.

As an aside; the average RCMP Constable has a battery of legal powers which might make the average despot drool; but there are a lot of checks and balances in the system here, which makes abuse of those powers a risky business. Besides, they still command the respect of many Canadians, and if you have that, keeping the law and 'maintaining the right' is a lot easier.

This revolution thing seems to be the meme for 2011. Gadaffi is being offered an out by his rebels, and all across the Middle East a seismic political shift is underway. In all colours of regime; from Theocracy to nascent democracy, changes are afoot. The world will be a very different place, politically speaking, when the dust settles, and the Western powers would be best advised to stay out of it, or be mightily embarrassed. We can do deals to keep the oil flowing, but not use military force, which will annoy the locals, and make them less amenable to doing business in the future. This ain't the late 1800's or early 1900's and gunboat diplomacy won't work there. We (and the Russians, and the Chinese) sold them the weapons, remember?

Hi ho, back to watching volcanoes and seismic shifts, of one sort or another.

I refuse to answer that question..... can't I?

The right to refuse to incriminate yourself got eroded by this latest ruling from the UK's high court.

The case involved Glenn Mulcaire, the private investigator who was jailed in 2007 for his part in the illegal interception of mobile phone messages for the News of the World newspaper. He now faces a number of civil suits related to other instances of alleged hacking.

Football pundit Andy Gray and comic Steve Coogan both claim that Mulcaire intercepted their messages and had asked the High Court to strip him of his right to avoid self-incrimination.

Does anyone else see the law of unforeseen consequences grinning in the shadows and sharpening a blade?

Call me Mr Paranoid, but I'm willing to bet this judgment will be coming to bite an innocent party near you in the not too distant future.

On the plus side, the High court has further ruled that newspapers don't have to identify anonymous commenters. Although I'm sure some ideologically motivated editor will do so.

What's so great about freedom anyway?

A simple man's discussion of liberty and freedom.

In the workshop the other day, working on a couple of small projects I found my mind wandering as it sometimes does when my hands are busy. Nothing much, just a little combination carpentry and engineering, general workaday stuff I do as a volunteer. I found myself wondering in the wake of the various Middle Eastern protests, what is freedom? What does it mean and who does it really benefit? Is it really in the words of the song; “just another word for nothing left to lose”? Why is it preferable (or not) to the alternatives? Why are people prepared to fight and die to attain it? Why do we make such a fuss?

What do the words ‘freedom’ and / or ‘liberty’ mean?

Here are some dictionary definitions for ‘Freedom’

• Freedom is the condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints
• Freedom is exemption: immunity from obligations or duties
• Political freedom is the absence of interference with the sovereignty of an individual by the use of coercion or aggression.
• Freedom is commonly known as a state of being free from government oppression.
• Self ownership

Similarly for ‘Liberty’

• Autonomy: immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority: political independence
• Freedom of choice; "liberty of opinion"; "liberty of worship"; "liberty--perfect liberty--to think, feel or do just as one pleases"; "at liberty to choose whatever occupation one wishes"
• Personal freedom from servitude or confinement or oppression
• Shore leave: leave granted to a sailor or naval officer
• Familiarity: an act of undue intimacy. As in “A downright liberty”
• Liberty is a concept of political philosophy identifying the condition in which an individual has the right to act according to his or her own will. In feudal times, a liberty was an area of allodial land in which regalian rights had been waived.

So those are the dictionary definitions, but does being ‘free’ mean freedom from want or hardship? No. If anything it means you work a bloody sight harder to earn your daily crust. Longer hours, and there’s no extra money in it. There’s no magic support moolah from the state if work dries up. You’re pretty much on your own.

Does it mean freedom from fear?

Well yes and no. Fear is pretty subjective anyway. Having walked mean streets without body armour, with what often seemed every voice turned against me, I know that fear only gets in the way of dealing with daily risks. To be free of fear, you just have to look into your inner mirror and say; “Yes of course that scares me, but not so much that I can’t or won’t do anything about it.” Otherwise you’re just a soon to be ex-rabbit staring into onrushing headlights.

Does freedom mean having no ‘rights’?

Depends what you call a ‘right’, doesn’t it? Some contend that only an institution like a state or statutory body can grant ‘rights’. What these Statist ‘rights’ tend to be are generally along the lines of; “Whatever I want given to me for free, for doing nothing in return, right now.” Such as the ‘right’ to ‘free’ services like medical cover and education or the ‘right’ to safety (Whatever that means). For me a ‘right’ derives not from what I want from the state, but from what I should be free to choose for myself, providing I promise not to whine if I screw up and it all ends in tears.

Put simply, the Statist wants a free lunch in exchange for a reduction in their liberties and increase in everyone else’s taxes. Contrariwise, the Libertarian doesn’t want the lunch, the extra tax, or the loss of choice. They just want to be able to run their own lives without having to ask permission all the time, or to have to pay for the choices of others.

Freedom can also be viewed as a balance between rights and obligations. You may have a right, but you have an obligation not to abuse that right to the detriment of others. Who also have exactly the same rights as everyone else. In a free society there should be no private law or privilege for the wealthy or famous. No ‘superior’ rights, such as in the case of vociferous minorities. No handicaps or positive discrimination to make things ‘fair’. Because any such bias in a truly free society is ‘unfair’. If you don’t understand that, well, you don’t ‘get’ the concept of fairness or freedom at all. We all have limitations, it's what you turn them into that counts.

Freedom also means not being subject to summary arrest or detention without evidence or charge. It means being able to voice an opinion without intimidation, physical or otherwise, or any form of detention. That means no one is allowed to thump you, or threaten to do so, for speaking your mind on a topic. No one is allowed to harass you or yours for not agreeing with them. It also means you can’t do that to others if you disagree with them.

Freedom also means the right of self defence. So if you tell someone to leave you in peace and they either threaten you, or attempt physical harm, you can take such steps as are necessary to negate the threat. In this situation, your right to prevent yourself or others being harmed should out weigh their right to disagree with you, should they escalate to violence first.

So what good is freedom anyway if you don’t really get anything out of it?

Ah, the question of the born slave. In a word; motivation. Freedom, or the self determination that comes as part of the package means you are master of your own destiny. It means choice. On the simplest level the power to make decisions for yourself without having to ask permission, with all the chances and thrills that brings. Once you’ve gotten past the fright of finding yourself firmly at the controls of your own life, it’s a remarkably refreshing experience, and not one you’ll give up without a bloody good fight.

So why are people willing to die for freedom?

A nice easy one, this. See also last sentence of previous paragraph. Self volition, freedom of choice and suchlike are fundamental human needs. I could trot out a whole bunch of buzzwords like ‘empowerment’, but that implies the power in question wasn’t an option in the first place. No one, apart from a slave, and not even then, likes being bossed around and told what they can think, say and do. Given enough provocation by an uncaring elite, even the most downtrodden worm will turn.

Looked at from an historical viewpoint it’s almost inevitable that an enslaved population will revolt. Chronicles from ancient civilizations to the present day are littered with such events. From Spartacus and before to the 20th Century Civil Rights movement and beyond. Having the ability to decide your own fate, at least for humans, is as natural as breathing. We are not a herd animal. Tribal yes, herd, no.

Hang on, this freedom thing just sounds like chaos, no one really wants that do they?

Whilst a state of absolute chaos where no rules apply, is undesirable, rigid enforcement is just as undesirable. All rules have circumstances in which an exemption is desirable for the benefit of others as a whole.

Humans, and just about every organic life form on the planet follow rules which can be ascertained by simple observation. The ‘simplest’ tribal society has a raft of rules governing dress, behaviour and diet. Yet what is right for them would most definitely not be appropriate for the average Western city dweller, and vice versa. Yet even in supposedly chaotic situations there are rules. Arbitrary and eccentric, but rules nonetheless.

There are certainly those who cannot function outside of a tightly defined set of rules. I’ve met a few and I understand one thing about them. Rules give them certainty. Rules define their tight little comfort zones. Rules are their security blanket. They long to dictate to others simply because it gives them a feeling of power which has been attained without first attaining either merit or ability. They want everyone to be the same as them, and can’t tolerate those who are different.

There is a saying that one man’s Anarchy is another’s business opportunity. For those who are prepared to ‘wing it’, the looser the system is the better. Yet even such a system has rules, which can be learned and worked within. All that you really need to know are the absolute boundaries beyond which you may not go.

Yeah, but this liberty thing, it’s just people being selfish isn’t it?

Is it selfish to think of and for oneself, and allow others to do likewise? To quote Oscar Wilde from ‘The soul of man under socialism’;

“It is grossly selfish to require of one's neighbour that he should think in the same way, and hold the same opinions. Why should he?………….…A red rose is not selfish because it wants to be a red rose. It would be horribly selfish if it wanted all the other flowers in the garden to be both red and roses.”

From De Profundis he quotes Ralph Waldo Emerson;

“It is tragic how few people ever 'possess their souls' before they die. 'Nothing is more rare in any man,' says Emerson, 'than an act of his own.' It is quite true. Most people are other people”

Freedom and liberty, if they mean anything at all, are about the sense of possession of one’s own spirit. To own oneself is by turns exhilarating, exasperating and exhausting, but a hell of a lot more interesting and enervating than the simple trudging existence of modern human bondage. Who was it that said. “The unexamined life is not worth living”? Oh yes, according to Plato, good old Socrates.

They know you're coming...

Details of passengers on every flight within the European Union will be passed to destination countries under European Commission proposals published today.

From my subscription to the Out-Law site run by UK Law firm Pinsent Masons. The USA, Canada and Australia already do it, now the EU will be passing on their passenger lists.

It's not the list of names I mind so much, but my suspicion is that 'mission creep' will insinuate it's way into the process, requiring ever more passenger data like ID details, height, weight, personal habits, all garnered ostensibly for 'marketing' or 'elfnsafetee'. Should criminals get access to the data, which is all too likely given various countries security records; they'll know where you are, when to burgle your house / abuse your identity etc.

His day in court

Picked up from Bishop Hill. The experienced climatologist Dr Tim Ball, one of the first Canadians to hold a Ph.D. in climatology, is being sued for libel for apparently saying that one Andrew Weaver knows 'nothing' about Climatology.

For Weaver to prove his case against Ball, he has to 'prove' his research in a court of law. Beer and popcorn are on standby. This could get interesting.

Some people

Some people are always looking a gift horse in the mouth, even in their sexual relations. Although I find myself wondering if those protesting 'eco-activists' were disappointed because they'd been left out of the all the shagging.

Well it made me laugh.

So the Tea party did it did they?

A lot of crass speculation flying around the leftish side of the blogosphere about who incited the assassin of six people whose number included a Judge and a 9 year old girl, also the attempted murder of a US Democratic congresswoman. A lot of it ill informed wishful idiocy.

A quick statement of position here; I hold no brief for Ex Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin or the US protest group the 'Tea Party'. Apart from me being a fan of small government and verifiable truths, but that's as far as my interest goes. As an aside, I can never understand the sheer volume of vitriol poured against Palin. She's no more gaffe prone than the current incumbent of the White House, although she does have nicer legs (Gosh, me sexist? Erm, possibly?).

Back to Seriousville; From all accounts the (Alleged - let's not forget due process) would be murderer of congresswoman Giffords, is in the mould of Leftist assassins. His high school colleagues knew him as one whose views veered far left of centre. His Facebook and Youtube postings paint a picture of someone as far opposed to the ideals of small government and personal liberty as espoused by the Tea Party as it is possible to be. So how can he be allied or inspired by groupings that are opposed to his own publicly well-documented political leanings?

You don't have to be a genius to make such an observation, and simply resorting to knee-jerk partisan playground accusations like some spoiled seven year old won't make it otherwise. Congresswoman Giffords has survived, but her attempted murder was nothing to do with her political opponents.

As for the accused murderer and would be assassin; if he is found guilty and the Board of Corrections run out of drugs to perform an execution by Lethal Injection, perhaps they'll wheel the Gas Chamber or Gallows out to edit this particular monster from humanity.

Democratia mortuus est

Just read this wonderful piece of news for all you poor buggers still stuck in the UK. Thought your vote counted? Well apparently it soon won't.

UK will 'cut and paste' EU laws directly onto UK statute books to cut down red tape

So what's the point of the 'Green' Cameroonies and the eco-looney Huhnes? Someone tell me please, I've forgotten.

A good reason not to use Facebook

One of the news services I subscribe to is the specialist legal site Out-law.com run by legal eagles Pinsent Masons which can be pretty useful for keeping up to date with the latest on legal matters pertaining to the jolly old interweb.

One of the latest wheezes with regards to using those apparently oh so user fiendish friendly NHS services is if you have a Facebook profile. The bulk of the story is here, and includes this quotation*:

"Facebook capturing data from sites like NHS Choices is a result of Facebook’s own system," said a Department of Health statement. "When users sign up to Facebook they agree Facebook can gather information on their web use. NHS Choices privacy policy, which is on the homepage of the site, makes this clear."

Apparently if you haven't logged out of your Facebook profile properly (Just closing the browser window doesn't count), then go browsing the NHS database for details of an embarrassing little ailment you'd rather no-one else knew about, Facebook get to know all about it. Isn't that sweet?

Now you know why I went to extremes to delete my entire Facebook profile.

*Published under the 'fair use' provisions of the copyright act to draw attention to or comment upon the article in question, so there guv'nor, gor blimey, luv a duck, it's a fair cop, innit?

Anonymity in BC

If one misguided person gets their way, it looks like the last sperm donors in Canada will lose their right of anonymity.

For what appears no better reason than the rather selfish "But I want to know!" One lawsuit threatens to screw a lot of good people who desperately want to be parents and haven't the biological wherewithal to produce children the old fashioned way. Cui bono? To whose benefit? It's a big lose-lose all round.

This is wrong on so many levels that it makes my eyeballs spin. Stripping people of their anonymity where no wrong is either intended or done is counter productive, and will ultimately force childless couples south of the border in search of genetic material to father a child they cannot produce themselves.

This is not to say that there should not be some form of regulation regarding donors. Whilst there is no issue with donors needing proper testing to eliminate genetic diseases and potentially harmful recessives, what does bother me is the trivial nature of the lawsuit, and the law of unintended consequences lurking just around the corner.

The UK has made this mistake, with the effect that sperm donation has dropped off the face of a cliff, thus reducing the gene pool available to potential parents. Said potential parents are now reduced to going to less well regulated clinics outside of Britain. No-one wants to give, free of charge, their own bodily secretions to have the result turn up on their doorstep demanding recognition some twenty or so years later. I mean think of the awkwardness factor alone. How would they introduce themselves? "Hi there. I'm your ejaculation." springs to mind. No doubt once the door of donor anonymity is prised open, another lawyer will be after financial support from sperm or egg donors.

One more good reason for the judge to dismiss the plaintiff's case; families are complex and fragile things. Who can tell how one's spouse of the moment would react if, in your forties, a young man or woman turned up on your doorstep, barging their way into your family life and demanding recognition? I've seen what my wife's ex did to his daughters with the revelation of a new half sister. Speaking as an interested bystander, I was not impressed. Neither were my stepdaughters.

There is so much more to being a parent than mere biology, as I've found out for myself. A simple biological contribution isn't enough to qualify. Being a parent is about mutual learning, shared affection, commitment, and a whole Himalayan sized spoil heap of heartbreak, joy, and sheer hard bloody work. It's not just an issue of gametes. Only a complete Sociopath looks at it that way.

As for the facile "If you don’t want to be identified, don’t be a donor." statement on the part of the plaintiff. That demonstrates outright contempt for the rights of others. People have the right to a past, they have a right to family life, they also have a right to privacy providing they have committed no crimes, and to steamroller over those rights just because one person has to know is just plain wrong and ultimately to the detriment of many others, past and future.

I'm sorely tempted to call the plaintiff in this case a silly selfish entitlement-seeking bitch, but I'm far too polite for that.

Taking the fight to the enemy part 1

Now I'm not much of a Libertarian, mainly because I know too much about my fellow man and am not overly impressed. Although I strongly believe that people should be allowed to do pretty much what they please, so long as it brings no quantifiable harm to others. Yet conversely I also am a firm believer in the rule of law. People need structure and protection that certain laws, and their even handed enforcement, are supposed to provide. Without that protection, we all might as well go armed during our daily round, dealing with wrongdoers according to our own personal moral code. To me at least, that is not acceptable.

The trouble is with law that there's always a lot of what some enforcement types call 'mission creep'. The expansion of law into areas not hitherto subject to its ministrations. Specifically their misuse; creating a worse series of injustices than the ones they were meant to get rid of.

There's currently a lot of that currently going on in Australia, where farmers are being forced off their land following complaints from vociferous minorities. A case in point is that of the Thompson family; law abiding, taxpaying people who complied with all the rules and regulations concerning an agricultural operation, yet now find themselves facing eviction from their own property after 21 complaints about the odour from their beef raising feedlot operation, for which the correct permissions had been obtained. The whole sorry saga is being covered extensively on Jo Nova's blog, and also over at Wattsupwiththat. If you wish to help the Thompsons to stay on their own land there is a 'Donate' button.

The problem is that this sort of thing is happening more and more in the Western world. Environmental laws rightly designed for the purpose of coming down heavily upon serious polluters are being used for enforcing comparatively petty complaints about 'smell'. In short the law becomes a NIMBY's charter to abuse at will. Having had a little experience with such people, I would say this; it's no use trying to reason with the complainers; nor is there any point. These are people with minds so small you couldn't swing a Gnat in them, never mind the proverbial moggy. These are people, who when confronted with something the rest of us would simply ignore good humouredly, over react, thrash about, and end up smashing other's lives like wilful children kill flies. Without conscience or remorse. Which is in a sense exactly what said complainers are. Ignorant, wilful, selfish and childish.

The only reasonable course of action seems to be to use the tools the complainers use against the heretofore law abiding. Specifically, constructed outrage; exaggeration of specific emotive points; targeted protest; and a very liberal attitude to the facts. Greensleaze and various similar groups have employed these tactics for decades. Perhaps it is time those affronted by the misuse of environmental laws took a leaf out of the eco-campaigners handbook.

For those interested I will be covering various suggested points in a series of tutorial style posts constructed in a 'how to' fashion taken from the handbook of the very enemies of liberty themselves. The first is a suggested short script treatment based around the plight of the Thompson family in Western Australia, with various suggested 'do's' and 'don'ts' on how to construct such a piece. At no time will I suggest or condone breaking the law in terms of violent confrontation or other anti-social behaviour. That is a line I personally am not prepared to cross. Violence is, as my proposed posts will outline, actually counter productive. As I have learned from a number of quarters; bullshit always baffles the finest brains.

Perhaps a reader will construct a campaigning video along the lines I suggest to help people like the Thompsons against the forces of eco-darkness. Perhaps it will leak into the mainstream and become a cause celebre. Stranger things have happened.

To be continued shortly.......

Euro trouble?

Read this piece in the Torygraph financial pages by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard. Then I read this article. Now if what both articles say is true, then the IMF are telling the European Central Bank to buy as much Grease Greek bonds as possible, in order to do something which is, according to Mr Evans-Pritchard, specifically forbidden under the European Constitution Lisbon Treaty. Apparently there are no less than four legal challenges in the German constitutional courts upon this very issue. Oh dear.

Oo-er. All I have to say is this for those stuck with the final round of 'Club Med' bonds and Euro's.


Regrettably Allied Dunbar, last I heard absorbed by Zurich, are no longer around to help. Not that they could assist with the possible massive fallout from a collapse of the Euro. Swiss Francs? Pounds? Kroner? Anyone?

I don't believe it

We all used to laugh when Victor Meldrew, the fictional arch curmudgeon, that misanthropes misanthrope, vouchsafed his famous catchphrase; "I don't believe it!" Now having read the news over the past few days I can only stand aghast and echo that sentiment to the metaphorical rafters.

My swear gland has finally been bestirred from it's long somnolence by this piece of news; Every e-mail, message, phone call, web site visit or other such communication passing through UK jurisdiction is going to be logged and held on a database. Which every local and national government flunky including Postman Pat's sodding cat can view without benefit of search warrant. Well at least if this article in the UK's Daily Telegraph is to be believed. Not that it'll stop any real terrorists. They'll just carry on using Phone cards, free Wi-Fi and offshore web resources which said databases will be as much good tracking as next doors flaming hamster. On the other hand, you complain over the phone to your mum that you're having trouble with one of your kids (Who doesn't?) and Child Services might just be the ones kicking down your door. HMRC might come meandering through your front hallway without a bye, leave or thank you if you go looking at one too many offshore bank accounts via the web. You will find yourself under investigation by the Police if your kids go surfing the web for ringtones and end up accessing a seriously sick hardcore porn site as our youngest once did. You have been warned.

It is rare for me to lapse into the pejorative but f*cking hell. Which utter w*nkst*in of a c*t*mite thought that was a jolly good wheeze eh? Which complete and utter onanistic waste of semen allowed that to come to pass? I would describe the implementors of such a policy as of lower worth than a putrid vaginal discharge, but that would be to decry perfectly honest, hard working bacteria. The originators of such a poorly thought through scheme make the most mean spirited Traffic Warden (And I could name a few real copper bottomed c*nts - I used to work with the b*st*rds) look like the reincarnation of St f*cking Francis of s*dding Assisi they are that low. The most drug addled adrenalin fuelled d*ckw*t with a lobotomy has more competence and common sense. So why the f*cking s*dding *rs*h*ling hades are powers of this magnitude being handed to those who couldn't run a f*cking bath properly?

The only wonder is that there isn't widespread protest from both left and right of the political spectrum. Why aren't British MP's being dragged out of their houses and stuck in the pillory for failing to preserve freedom of speech?

Millions of people from my Mother and Father's generation are laid out in f*cking rows under the ground because they believed in fighting oppression. Hundreds of thousands from Britain alone never lived past twenty bloody f*cking five because they believed that they had to defend their land. Almost half a bloody million Britons in five years, and all their sacrifice has been pissed up the wall by a bunch of greedy traitors and sodomites unfit to lick dogsh*t off the streets.You can tell I'm annoyed, can't you?

Ah b*gger it. I wash my hands of the place. There's no point; no f*cker in Britain cares enough any more. Democracy in the UK has failed because not enough people cared to do anything about it. Only a few were willing to even protest.

Me? Over the past thirty years I wrote to my MP about the various threats to liberty such as latterly the Civil Contingencies act and RIPA, signed petitions, attended protests (Yes I have), joined pro freedom organisations, lobbied, and was roundly ignored and mocked for my troubles. Ha ha, wasting your time Bill. Never happen. You're talking b*ll*cks. Stupid man. Well, girls. Quoth Uncle Bill in low and dangerous tones; you're still there, and I'm over here in Canada, free to walk my way until doomsday if it so please me. How does it feel to be property, huh?

Well as the country that founded the Anglosphere sinks slowly into the morass of the EU, all I can say is goodbye. It's a shame, but there you go. All good things as they say, must come to an end; and now the end for Britain is here. Straws, Camels backs, all that jazz. Do what you're told peon and it's back to the good old days of medieval feudality when you were mobile property, to be disposed of at the notion and whim of your social superiors.

All on the back of the excuse of terrorism. Well boys, we all know who the real terrorists are don't we?

What the hell. I console myself thus; at least the sodomites who sold you down the river won't ever breed. F*ck it, I'm going hunting. Comment if you like; I no longer care.

This rant is at an end.

*The use of self censoring asterisks throughout this post is at the request of Mrs S, who thought that mere swearing simply lowered the tone of the whole blog. It's probably funnier this way, or would be if the subject matter wasn't such a cause for concern. Hey, the UK's your country, or at least it used to be.

They shoot Nazi's don't they?

Local stuff; a man described as a 'Neo-Nazi Environmentalist' was shot dead by the RCMP on the 23rd. It's been all over the local news.

My friends locally are quite shocked. Shootings in the mid-island? Good gravy! The only shootings that generally happen around here result in a nice Venison stew. Now the RCMP are shooting Nazi's? Well bless my soul. Just reinforces the twelfth commandment; 'thou shalt not piss off the Mounties'. We have reasonable laws, and it is their job to enforce those laws. Policemen, at least in my experience, do tend to think the worst of the public in general because they mainly deal with law breakers rather than the law abiding.

Now not having been at the incident in question, I can only take an educated guess based upon my years footslogging as to what happened. The reports say that there was a noise complaint and the Police turned up to investigate. The reports say that having been asked to 'turn it down' there was an 'altercation' with the gentleman concerned after which the RCMP withdrew to wait for a Police dog unit. The reports further state that the 'victim' was a 'gun enthusiast'. The RCMP would be aware of this, as the gun laws round here are pretty strict, and they like to know who has what kind of firepower and where it is. Handguns are allowed for target shooting, but the movement and storage of said firearms is strictly regulated. Therefore; if said 'victim' kept his guns at home, then the local detachment would have known this, and been ready for trouble.

Policemen the world over are like the rest of us, and don't like being shot. I too share this prejudice. Being shot at is not very nice, and if anyone were to even threaten me with such an action, I would like the opportunity of being a) completely out of range or b) behind something highly resistant to bullets, or c) to shoot them before they pulled the trigger on me. Call me an old silly but my preference is for a). However, if it is your job to take guns off people who are behaving in less than a reasonable fashion, then being armed and prepared to use those arms, as in option c) is only fair and sportsmanlike.

However, one of his neighbours has indicated that said 'Neo-Nazi environmentalist' periodically 'came off his meds' and was at those times less than the nicest person on gods earth. Bearing this in mind, it is no giant leap of the imagination to work out that he did not take kindly to being asked to turn down the noise, got the hump at being told what to do, started to argue the toss with the RCMP, then made (apparently) to go for his gun(s). At this point, elf 'n safety rules would have come into play, knowing that the 'victim' in question had guns at his disposal and rather than be used for said 'victims' target practice, the policemen in question would have shot first. Simples.

Having had nuisance neighbours, and consequently suffered sleep deprivation because my work / life cycle did not mesh with theirs, and their desire for loud music / partying / domestic rows into the early hours; I can readily sympathise with the victims afflicted neighbours. Just because he was an 'environmentalist' of whatever political kidney does not excuse said 'victim' from anti-social behaviour. If he behaved like these environmental protesters, as far as I'm concerned, the Police were quite welcome to tazer his ass until it smokes.