Correction: British police already harassing people

A few days ago, I found myself aghast at the notion that Britain might tell its cops to stop and question “suspicious-looking” individuals. Silly me: it’s already happening.

• Increase in anti-terror targets (The Beeb)

Apparently, all of London is a potential target (well, so is all of the rest of the planet — that’s what potential means — but let’s not quibble), and the terror threat is “undiminished”:

Counter-terror police have recorded a 37% increase in “suspicious reconnaissance” of potential targets in the first four months of 2007.

[...]

Under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, police officers may randomly stop someone without reasonable suspicion, providing the area has been designated a likely target for an attack.

The power is currently in force across the whole of London.

Now, looking at this “suspicious reconnaissance” thing: the Beeb’s article doesn’t define suspicious reconnaissance, but I imagine it involves displaying heightened interest in a particular building or complex, taking lots of photos, spending a great deal of time on the grounds of said building(s)….

…sort of the thing a tourist might do, no? Apparently most of these stops happen around “transport hubs” (26%) and “tourist attractions” (23%). Sure makes me want to go visit London again!

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the more one looks for “suspicious reconnaissance”, the more one finds it.

Anyway, this is all just a regrettable-but-necessary measure to ensure the security of the Nation, right? Okay, so a few pinko-anarchist civil-liberty nuts are whinging about it — but like those cameras, it makes most people feel ever so much safer, doesn’t it?

In February London police came under fire from their watchdog, the Metropolitan Police Authority, in a major report into the effect of counter-terrorism policing on the capital.

The watchdog found that the force’s use of special anti-terror stop and search powers were doing “untold harm” to communities in the capital, in particularly Muslims.

How to combat al Qaeda-based terrorism: piss off the Muslims! Yeah, that’ll work well. (A particularly cynical conspiracy theorist might suggest that the Metropolitan Police are deliberately polarizing London’s Muslims to justify their extra powers — and presumably their extra funding — as part of the “War on Terror”, but we all know better than that. Right?)

And as the icing on this particular cake, Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman of the Metropolitan Police justifies the unrestrained use of these invasive powers with an argument that, by its very construction, cannot be refuted:

While police could never be certain that a stop directly reduced the threat of a specific potential attack, he said it was important in a wider counter-terrorism context.

“What we do know is the mode of behaviour around a terrorist,” he said. “If they feel that they could be stopped and searched under these powers, they could be prevented [from attacking]. What I don’t know is how many are truly prevented.”

So the absence of evidence justifies these powers.  “Nothing’s happening — it must be working!”  One could just as easily claim that I have single-handedly deterred terrorist attacks upon greater Vancouver by drinking high-quality beer!  After all, nothing’s happened — it’s working!  (Sorry about that Air India thing; I was underage at the time.)

Oh yes, right: Ben Franklin, essential liberty, temporary security; you know the drill.

Bravely fighting the anti-social among us

Looks like putting your feet up isn’t just a crime in Calgary:

• Put your feet on a train seat, get a criminal record (Prison Planet)

Here’s what happened:

A commuter who put his feet on a seat during his train journey home has been prosecuted in a clampdown on antisocial behaviour.

[...]

He was ordered to attend court under a 120-year-old bye-law which makes it a criminal offence “to interfere with the comfort or convenience” of fellow passengers.

He pleaded guilty and was given a one-year conditional discharge and ordered to pay £50 costs. This means he now has a criminal record.

But it’s not like the cops in question had anything better to do:

A spokesman [for the train operator] said: “We are tackling things that aren’t the crimes of the century but which irritate the 99.9 per cent of passengers who find such behaviour unacceptable.

Yeah, it really pisses me off when some guy plants his feet on an unoccupied bench.

“We’ve reduced incidents such as robberies and assaults on our trains by 60 per cent and we’re now tackling lower-level troublemakers.”

It’s good to know that rail security staff in the UK aren’t running out of people to arrest, I suppose.

UK academics flip off Big Brother

Thus:

• UK lecturers refuse to spy on students (Press Esc)

Spying on students?  No, we’re not talking about running their code through Google to detect plagiarism:

University and College Union, the main trade body trade union and professional association for higher educators, resolved to “To resist attempts by government to engage colleges and universities in activities which amount to increased surveillance of Muslim or other minority students and to the use of members of staff for such witch-hunts,” at their annual congress held in Bournemouth.

The motion comes in response to British government’s new guidelines that make it compulsory for universities to keep a watchful eye on Muslim students, and immediately report any suspicious behaviour to the authorities.

So now the government’s making it compulsory for people to “immediately report any suspicious behaviour” they see.  Very nice — someone’s been getting into the literary history of his (or her) country:

 Nearly all children nowadays were horrible. What was worst of all was that by means of such organizations as the Spies they were systematically turned into ungovernable little savages, and yet this produced in them no tendency whatever to rebel against the discipline of the Party. On the contrary, they adored the Party and everything connected with it. The songs, the processions, the banners, the hiking, the drilling with dummy rifles, the yelling of slogans, the worship of Big Brother — it was all a sort of glorious game to them. All their ferocity was turned outwards, against the enemies of the State, against foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals. It was almost normal for people over thirty to be frightened of their own children. And with good reason, for hardly a week passed in which The Times did not carry a paragraph describing how some eavesdropping little sneak — ‘child hero’ was the phrase generally used — had overheard some compromising remark and denounced its parents to the Thought Police.

The careful reader will have no trouble figuring out whence I quoted that.

Nil desperandum, though — the present British government doesn’t seem capable of thoroughly indoctrinating enough people to get them voluntarily to spy upon their neighbours, so instead it tries to compel the unwilling into sneaky little acts of eavesdropping.  As the UCU have shown, that’s an unreliable strategy.

One hundred words

Houghton Mifflin give this list of one hundred words that every high school graduate ought to know:

• One Hundred Words

I take them to mean that every high school graduate should aspire to incorporate these words into their vocabulary, not that every graduate should be expected to already have an adequate command of them.

Irritatingly, I missed four:

• “evanescent” (quickly fading or disappearing)
• “fiduciary” (involving trust, particularly a relationship)
• “moiety” (a distinct part into which a thing can be divided)
• “pecuniary” (involving money)

For more adventures in sesquipedalianism, I suggest Eugene Ehrlich’s The Highly Selective Dictionary for the Extraordinarily Literate.

Britain mulls police harassment

That rumbling sound you hear? It’s George Orwell, spinning in his grave like a high-speed lathe.

• More stop and quiz terror powers (The Beeb)

Briefly:

A Home Office spokeswoman said that the new proposals would give officers an automatic right to stop and question anyone in the UK about suspected terrorism.

[...]

Police are still likely to need a “reasonable suspicion” a crime may be committed. Anyone refusing to co-operate could be fined up to £5,000.

Now, I’m given to understand that it’s already perfectly legal for a constable to walk up to you, greet you politely, introduce himself, and strike up a conversation about those furtive individuals smelling of fertilizer and diesel fuel who just rented a box van and a forklift. It seems to me that the British don’t need a law explicitly permitting civilized behaviour on the part of their police forces — so I have a feeling that “stop and question” here will tend to be interpreted more along the lines of “detain and interrogate”.

Nil desperandum, though: this proposal is merely “under consideration”, and the Beeb reports a good deal of public opposition to the idea. Now that the creepy authoritarian Tony Blair’s on his way out, the British may recover some of their civil liberties from the state.

The Home Office would not comment on suggestions the new laws were to be rushed through before Tony Blair steps down as prime minister on 27 June.

Wait, why do I keep slamming Tony Blair? Well, this, for example:

Writing separately in the Sunday Times, Mr Blair said the disappearance of the three suspects under control orders was a symptom of a society which put civil liberties before fighting terror.

The prime minister described this as “misguided and wrong” and said prioritising a terror suspect’s right to traditional civil liberties was “a dangerous misjudgement”.

The notion that draconian legislation can somehow magically be made to infringe only upon the civil liberties of “terror suspects” — ignoring for the moment that everyone who travels by air is a terror suspect these days — is, of course, ridiculous.  (So is the notion that all “terror suspects” must be guilty of something, and therefore “deserve” the loss of their liberties.)

(What’s this “control orders” thing about which Mr. Blair’s been whinging?  El Reg has a decent analysis up:

• The flaws in the control order ‘fantasy prison’ mind game

It seems to be a system under which the government says they’ll monitor your movement, and then does not.)

As for the notion that prizing liberty over safety is “misguided and wrong”: well, if indeed “the terrorists” do “hate us for our freedom” (as Giuliani &c. appear to believe), then throwing that freedom away might just end the terrorist threat.  The idea smacks of capitulation, but perhaps Mr. Blair is more akin to Chamberlain than to Churchill.

Good fucking balls, we’ve lost the ACLU

Thus:

• The American Liberal Liberties Union (OpinionJournal)

Look, once you start tacitly accepting censorship against opinions that you dislike, you can’t help but strengthen the case for censorship against opinions that you like. As far as I’m concerned, the best way to defeat something fundamentally idiotic — like creationism, say, or “9/11 truthers” — is to give its proponents their day in the sun, let them propose every single shred of evidence they can possibly dredge up, and tear them to rhetorical pieces. Similarly, we can tear homophobes to tiny shreds of quivering flesh (rhetorically speaking, of course — no, really!), and deal with Holocaust deniers and Orwellian statists of all stripes the same way.

If we’re right, we can win a debate in the public sphere. So the enemy vomits forth propaganda — well, the principles are well known, we can (and should!) play that game too! If we commit to no-holds-barred debate, the most likely way for them to beat us is by legislative (or physical) violence — and if the ACL-fucking-U has turned a blind eye to that sort of thing before, it sets a horrifying precedent that won’t help us when we want it.

And if — just hypothetically speaking, of course — we’re wrong… well, we should find out as soon as possible, shouldn’t we?

Why I like Ron Paul, vol. 1

(Okay, probably not the first time I’ve praised Mr. Paul, but hey.)

• Who are the patriots? (Ron Paul)

In particular:

The true patriot is motivated by a sense of responsibility, and out of self interest — for himself, his family, and the future of his country — to resist government abuse of power. He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to the state.

[...]

Unquestioned loyalty to the state is especially demanded in times of war. Lack of support for a war policy is said to be unpatriotic. Arguments against a particular policy that endorses a war once it’s started, are always said to be endangering the troops in the field. This, they blatantly claim, is unpatriotic and all dissent must stop. Yet it is dissent from government policies that defines the true patriot and champion of liberty.

It is conveniently ignored that the only authentic way to best support the troops is to keep them out of dangerous, undeclared, no-win wars that are politically inspired. Sending troops off to war for reasons that are not truly related to national security — and for that matter may even damage our security — is hardly a way to “patriotically” support the troops.

[...]
Because the crisis atmosphere of war supports the growth of the state, any problem invites an answer by declaring “war” — even on social and economic issues. This elicits patriotism in support of various government solutions while enhancing the power of the state. Faith in government coercion and a lack of understanding of how free societies operate, encourages big government liberals and big government conservatives to manufacture a war psychology to demand political loyalty for domestic policy just as is required in foreign affairs. The long term cost in dollars spent and liberties lost is neglected as immediate needs are emphasized.

It is for this reason that we have multiple perpetual wars going on simultaneously. Thus the war on drugs, against gun ownership, poverty, illiteracy, and terrorism, as well as our foreign military entanglements, are endless.

All this effort promotes the growth of statism at the expense of liberty. A government designed for a free society should do the opposite: prevent the growth of statism and preserve liberty. Once a war of any sort is declared, the message is sent out not to object or you will be declared unpatriotic. Yet, we must not forget that the true patriot is the one who protests in spite of the consequences, condemnation or ostracism, or even imprisonment that may result.

[...]

Statism depends on the idea that the government owns us and citizens must obey.

[...]

The last six years have been quite beneficial to the “health of the state,” which comes at the expense of personal liberty. Every enhanced unconstitutional power of the state can only be achieved at the expense of individual liberty.

[...]

But let it not be said that we did nothing.

Let not those who love the power of the welfare/warfare state label the dissenters of authoritarianism as unpatriotic or uncaring. Patriotism is more closely linked to dissent than it is to conformity and a blind desire for safety and security. Understanding the magnificent rewards of a free society makes us unbashful in its promotion, fully realizing that maximum wealth is created and the greatest chance for peace comes from a society respectful of individual liberty.

Alas, I fear that this man loves his country (not his government!) too much to be elected President.

 

Might farm subsidies be a bad idea?

Experience in New Zealand seems to suggest so:

• Kiwi Fruit for America (TCS Daily)

Thus:

For more than 20 years, farm assistance had steadily increased, peaking at 33 percent of total farm output (about double the level of assistance in the U.S. today). Then, with one swift and decisive decree, all subsidies were eliminated.

[...]

Many had worried that the end of subsidies would destroy agriculture in the country, yet the agricultural sector grew as a percentage of GDP. Today approximately 90 percent of farm output is exported, making up more than 55 percent of total merchandise exports. Productivity gains have allowed farmers to remain competitive in a world market where they compete with farmers in subsidized countries. Real farm incomes have recovered, and in some sectors income is even higher than it was under subsidies.

Shocking!  (I get the feeling that I’ve discussed this once before.)

I don’t bring this up because I think that free-market capitalism is a good idea, necessarily — but because I think that pervasive government intervention is even worse than unregulated free-for-all laissez-faire capitalism.  I suspect that an entirely unregulated market will eventually stabilize in a consumer-fucking monopolistic plutarchy — but then again, isn’t that just another way to define total communism?  (Not quite: in a perfectly communist state, the government is the monopoly: I’m willing to bet that a government monopoly will squander resources whilst fucking the people, while a private monopoly will merely fuck the people with passable efficiency.  But that’s neither here nor there — I endorse neither extreme.)

While we’re on the subject of government regulation:

• Goldman Takes ‘Private’ Equity To a New Level (Wall Street Journal)

It’ll be interesting to see how that turns out.  Surely an unregulated stock market will be an unmitigated disaster, full of insider trading and the financial equivalent of prison sex… won’t it?  I mean, isn’t that why we give the government so much control over our money — we can’t trust ourselves (or our brokers, or whatever) to invest it prudently?

The perceptive reader will detect some skepticism.

As usual, I suspect that the “best” answer lies somewhere in the middle, with a mild degree of outside intervention from an authority with (heh heh) little investment in the outcome.  Let’s find out!