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.

Good grief

Have been asked to send the odd expatriate piece to the brand new group blog 'Orphans of Liberty'. Frankly I'm surprised they wanted an ex-enforcement officer and sometime 'agent of oppression' on the site, but there you go. However, I'm all better now, and my days of confronting the inconsiderate are almost four years in my past, which is slightly longer than I spent in that wretched job.

I see there is a lot of whining about the UK Police arresting known troublemakers to stop them getting in the way of last Fridays public celebrations. Oddly enough for someone of a (mildly) libertarian bent, I'm with Julia M on this. Julia posted that it was okay to keep known agitators away from the pomp and circumstance. I agree. That day was for the people who love and revere the Royal Family to express their devotion, not to have the day marred by some self aggrandising eejit haranguing them, lying down in front of Royal Coaches, and any other bit of childish attention grabbing mischief said self aggrandising eejits could generate.

If you don't like a party, that's fine, don't go. What is most definitely not fine is to spoil it for others. That's like stomping petty jackboots along a table laid out for a kids street party, kicking the jelly and sandwiches to the ground because their laughter annoys you. Liberty is right and good, but the line is most definitely crossed to oppression when you intend to interfere in the happiness of others.

As far as the celebrations were concerned, I'm an ex-monarchist. However, this does not entitle me to disrupt proceedings, no matter how strongly I feel that the terms of my UK citizenship have been altered without my consent. The old ways will decline and fade without my intervention. I will make my destiny elsewhere. That, after all, is what I left the UK to do.

As for the Alternate vote thing; hey, how come people in the UK get to vote on the voting system, and not on the greater issue of whether they want to be part of a European superstate? The only vote on the matter was back in the 70's, and that was for an entirely different beast.

Regarding AV, over here in Canada the briefly adopted Alternate Voting system was ditched after one election, and a Single Transferable Voting system proposed. Although we've still got first past the post as the 2005 referendum to adopt STV missed it's mark by 3%.

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.

Mubarak gone

President Hosni Mubarak has waived the office of president

From Al-Jazeera Live blog.

I thought he was going to hold out until September. How much of a difference will his going make to the ordinary Egyptian on the street?

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.

Discussion topics

“It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”

Samuel Adams

“If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”

This Samuel Adams, not this one, although I am quite partial to the odd bottle.

Back later. Talk amongst yourselves.

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.

Bloggers soliloquy

To blog, or not to blog, that is the question;
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous falsehoods,
Or to take up words, and by opposing, defy them.
To stop, and speak no more, and by a waking silence to end
The headache, and the myriad WTF!'s That mind is heir to.
'Tis a consummation most devoutly to be wished.
To write, perchance make sense : ay, there's the phrase,
For in that slough of words what thoughts may come
When we have shuffled off some blogrolls end,
Must give us pause. There's some respect
That makes calamity of online life.
For who would bear the ignorance and slurs of Trolls,
The lamestream's wrong, politician's contempt,
The pangs of unrequited links, the law's encroach,
The silence of little traffic, and spurning
That patient merit of his unworthy site,
Where writing might his quietus make
Without a keystroke? Who would trolls bear,
To grunt and swear upon unread prose,
But that the dread of no longer having blog,
Dumping irksome thoughts, puzzles the will,
And makes us tolerate those faults we have
Than try out new ones we know nothing of?
This conscience does make cowards of us all,
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprise of great pitch and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry
And lose the name of action. -- Soft you now,
My unquiet mind! -- Thought, in thy orisons
Be all my sins remembered.

Bill Sticker, with many abject apologies to another poor scrivener known as William.

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.

Jante Law

1: Don't think you're anything special.
2: Don't think you're as much as us.
3: Don't think you're wiser than us.
4: Don't convince yourself that you're better than us.
5: Don't think you know more than us.
6: Don't think you are more than us.
7: Don't think you are good at anything.
8: Don't laugh at us.
9: Don't think anyone cares about you.
10: Don't think you can teach us anything.
11: Don't think there's anything we don't know about you.
12: Don't even try or we'll pull you down.

Described in the 1933 novel A Fugitive Crosses His Tracks by Aksel Sandemose

Does this sound awfully and creepily familiar? A classic insight into the trollish mentality?

A.K.A. "Crab bucket Syndrome". Endemic in the UK. An excellent exposition of which is outlined in Terry Pratchett's 'Unseen Academicals'

What use is a dog?

Now I'm a 'dog' person (I also like cats, but that's by-the-by), I grew up with a dog in the house, and feel that a dog is the best barometer of a household. I've also formed the opinion that a place where people live is less of a home without a dog. They are a symptom of life and useful gauge of happiness. Especially a crossbreed or 'Mutt'. Pedigrees are a bit more tricky, having been bred mostly to a specific function and generally speaking host to a temperament which can be best described as 'Mercurial'.

Notwithstanding, my own preference is for a 'Mutt', with all their eccentricities. If dogs can be used as a reflection of their owners nature, then mine is a friendly and sometimes over enthusiastic goofball. However, when it comes to being useful, that ball of fur slumped in the office doorway earns his home and comfort just by being who he is.

My dog more than earns his keep as guardian and friend. Apart from his predilection for silent but deadly farts when Mrs S and I decide to watch a little televisual entertainment, he makes a great footwarmer on cold evenings. His hearing is many times more sensitive than a humans, warning of visitors before they get halfway up the drive. His sense of smell has an acuity many times more than the most accurate human, and possibly way more discriminating than any man made device. Although what is Chanel No 5 to him (Bear and Deer droppings) are something he and I will have to disagree on. Yet his sense of smell has prevented household fires and several other potentially hazardous situations. Yes, a good mutt is hard to beat, and mine is a good 'un.

It matters not that his lifespan is much shorter than mine, and that I will grieve terribly when he dies at the age of 17 or so years. More so because it will be me who finally has to hold him in my arms as he draws his last doggy breath. We will have had the shared joy of life, and a new pooch will have been found before then both to give him company and for him to train in the ways of master and house in his declining years, and so our parting will not be such a yawning chasm of loss.

On a slightly connected topic, having watched the growing furore over the invasive and insensitive TSA body searches and scans wonder why the hell more dogs have not been employed in US airports. Yet for all their shortfalls, as a first line of defence they are the best tool in the box. Instead of the tiresome 'everyone has to be scanned' mentality, why aren't the Yanks using a more layered response? At Vancouver airport there's always a dog or two on patrol, and being walked past a trained animal who can detect explosives more readily than a human with a backscatter x-ray device should be more effective. One or two animals walked around the departure gates are not only a first line alert for filtering out the bad guys, but also get round the massive queuing issues that make air travel such a chore.

I'm sure there are people out there who are cynophobic, or have a cultural bias against dogs, but they are in a minority and would have to go through the body scanner regardless. I know dogs aren't infallible, but they're a good first line of defence. If everyone goes through the metal detectors anyway, the airport queues move faster and still filter out the nutters who think that blowing aircraft out of the sky with them on board is somehow very intelligent. This may be unfair to some, but far better a little unfairness to a few, than a great deal to many, as at present.

A well placed dog can help get round quite a number of security issues on a number of levels. Either as a detector or deterrent. So, dogs are useful. Even flop eared, goofy, and occasionally smelly pets like mine. We need more of them. Especially when the enemy doesn't like them much.

Winging it

Well, if you listen to some sources, those who believe in the sovereign rights of the individual are filthy 'right wing' scum. Ookay, does this mean that the following tenets of liberty are evil, such as the right of individuals to;

a) Control their own lives and bodies
b) Own pretty much what they want from their own efforts
c) Talk to who they like, when they like
d) Go where they want

So long as no one does witting harm to others, and makes reparation for same if they do.

So that belief set is somehow very bad, eh?

Hmm....... Yet when you weigh up the alternatives, like;

a) Cradle to grave subjugation by others
b) Collectivisation, regardless of contribution
c) No right to opinions or associations but those approved by 'superiors'
d) Travel and recreation only if sanctioned by 'superiors'

Well, that doesn't seem so great to me. Besides, hasn't this type of society been tried several times during the 20th century and failed miserably? If it was so great, then why did the Soviets need Gulags for dissidents?

No, if Liberty and belief in the rights of the individual is 'right-wing' then I'm a filthy right wing scumbag (Swivel-eyed only when specifically called upon - as my Mum said; "If the wind changes you'll stick like it") and proud of it.

Here endeth the Sunday sermon.

There's a kind of hush....

..... Falling over certain Libertarian corners of the blogosphere. If the disparate web pages hosted on servers all over the place can be said to have corners. In particular the swearbloggers appear to be losing their voices in despair over the continual, if predictable, failure of politicians to heed the many voices of warning. Mr Eugenides has shut up shop, Obnoxio the Clown, even the near indefatigable Devil's Kitchen Knife says he's having trouble with mustering the anger any more.

Can't say I blame them. The time is long since past to be making plans and garnering resources to pack up and ship out of what may well become the next great prison-state.

My own visit to England a few weeks ago brought it home with a bang. Even a train journey into a medium sized British city showed a land blighted with CCTV and excess security checks. ANPR cameras all over the place around the major urban centres, the insidious Average Speed Cameras. Rarely did I see a proper policeman on foot patrol. Just the blank, anonymous, unremitting glassy stare of wall to wall surveillance. Even if the images are little better than useless at catching the real bad guys.

Another sinister pointer is when the powers that be think they can interfere in the appointments of a minor political party, you know the system is going to hell.

The whole of the UK is encrusted with rules upon rules, layers upon layers of suspicion that made me feel grubby after only a few minutes. It also left me with the distinct urge to scrub my skin clean from the inside every time I got back to our hotel room. A kind of patina has covered the land of my birth. A scummy layer that pollutes everything it touches. Those within it's cloying embrace will not notice because the changes have been so gradual, but changes there have been, and not for the better. Even old friends seemed tarnished by living there. Such is the New Labour legacy, and the Coalition appear to be continuing down the same sorry street.

It's the same shit, different day. No wonder some of the strongest voices are falling silent.