news and comment

civil liberties

C O L O U R K E 'Y

topic archives: civil liberties
for previously archived news article pages, visit the news archive page (click on the button to the left)

I-2007: 22 | III-2007: 31 | V-2007: 22 | V-2007: 27 | XI-2007: 06 18

No use locking your doors, the Brown Clown wants in!

“He was reported by cleaners at a hostel who unlocked his door and found him engaged in a sex act with his bike.”

And now the Clown wants us to travel by bike to help reduce oil comsumption and CO₂ emissions, how will he collect all those lovely taxes?

How long before bicycles must be taxed and licenced for use of over 18s only, and entry to cycle shops prohibited to children, while their windows must be darkened?

Or perhaps being found in the company of a bicycle could be deemed a very serious crime?

Lead from Limbic’s blog.

the web address for the article above is
https://www.abelard.org/news/civil-liberties2007.php#pedalophilia_181107

advertising
disclaimer

advertising
disclaimer

advertising
disclaimer

on the right, or otherwise, to self-defence in the uk and the usa

“The safety of English people has been staked on the thesis that fewer private guns means less crime. The government believes that any weapons in the hands of men and women, however law-abiding, pose a danger, and that disarming them lessens the chance that criminals will get or use weapons.

“The results -- the toughest firearm restrictions of any democracy -- are credited by the world's gun control advocates with producing a low rate of violent crime. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell reflected this conventional wisdom when, in a 1988 speech to the American Bar Association, he attributed England's low rates of violent crime to the fact that "private ownership of guns is strictly controlled."

“In reality, the English approach has not reduced violent crime. Instead it has left law-abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals who are confident that their victims have neither the means nor the legal right to resist them. Imitating this model would be a public safety disaster for the United States.”
—
“The English government has effectively abolished the right of Englishmen, confirmed in their 1689 Bill of Rights, to "have arms for their defence," insisting upon a monopoly of force it can succeed in imposing only on law-abiding citizens. It has come perilously close to depriving its people of the ability to protect themselves at all, and the result is a more, not less, dangerous society. Despite the English tendency to decry America's "vigilante values," English policy makers would do well to consider a return to these crucial common law values, which stood them so well in the past.”

Link indirectly from ‘face’.

related material
An overview of Civil Liberties legislation since 1900

the web address for the article above is
https://www.abelard.org/news/civil-liberties2007.php#self_defence061107

yesterday there was a rather foolish item in the groaniad on which i proffered comment; now...

There is another Groaniad [Guardian] item that is less naive, but naivete remains.

“Why can the Labour government not see now what they saw so clearly saw then? And if they can't see it, why would we entrust them with piloting a new constitutional settlement?”
—
“ "Ask yourself where he stood as Foreign Secretary on rendition. We heard not a peep out of him as Blair attacked
jury trial,
habeas corpus,
the right to silence,
the exclusion of hearsay evidence from court proceedings,
double jeopardy,
the principle that a man cannot be punished without a court deciding the law has been broken.
Ask yourself who was speaking but did nothing when Walter Wolfgang was hauled out of a Labour conference. Now he comes to us burbling about constitutional renewal and the 'relevance of rights'. ”
—
They are repackaging our liberty and selling it to us as a new bill of rights and duties. Nobody points out that the only reason we are now discussing a new bill of rights is because Labour's villainous laws have made it a political necessity for Brown to win back voters' confidence. Few question the addition of responsibilities - or 'duties' - to a code of rights. Many of our duties as citizens are already established in law and a Labour government, least of all Jack Straw, has no business defining our responsibilities to each other or, more odiously, to the state. And let us not forget that duty is primarily a matter of conscience, not coercion.

“It seems Labour cannot give something away or, in this case, return a small portion of what was ours without imposing conditions. Putting Jack Straw in charge of the consultation process on a bill of rights is like turning over a campaign against prostitution to the head of an escort agency. Such a man can only see a bill of rights as political tool and a way of further entrenching the powers of government and the executive.”

It is incredible that people still assume that Brown the Clown has any serious integrity or good will. In reality, he is just a con man trying to pull yet another scam.

James Hammerton has made an excellent deconstruction of Gordon Brown’s speech.

“So, in the end what do we have? A speech with a lot of fine sounding words, but when it comes to actions, mostly it’s just reviews and consultations without any solid commitments.

“ What few commitments there are, are relatively minor, and some even continue the attacks on civil liberties we’ve seen under Blair and over the summer since Brown took office.

“ And I re-iterate: Not one of the past attacks on civil liberties from this government or the previous Tory administration is being repealed. At best, a couple of more minor proposed attacks have been dropped. It thus seems to me that Mr Brown thinks he can get away with talking the talk, but not walking the walk, on civil liberties.” [Quoted from magnacartaplus.org]

The Brown Clown is dishonest through to the core. I liked this almost accidental revelation in a sycophantic article:

“In one sense, Mr Brown's impressive lecture on liberty at the University of Westminster on Thursday was an extended book review (which did not mention the book) [...] ”

related material
cameron on national security, and an amusing article on brown, the empty suit

the web address for the article above is
https://www.abelard.org/news/civil-liberties2007.php#rights_under_brown_281007

cameron on national security, and an amusing article on brown, the empty suit

I have only scanned this at high speed, it looks worth study to me.

“My second principle is that we should replace the doctrine of liberal interventionism, famously propounded by former Prime Minister Tony Blair in a speech in Chicago in 1999 with the doctrine of liberal conservatism - conservatism not in its narrow party political meaning, but in the sense of a sceptical attitude towards the ability of states to create utopias.

“I believe that these two principles - national security first, and liberal conservatism - together represent the right combination of realism and idealism that we need to deal with the serious dangers of the modern world." [Quoted from conservatives.com]

“NATIONAL SECURITY FIRST

“ "National security first" may sound like a perverse principle to adopt in an age of complex and globally linked security threats.

“Surely it is more important than ever that we put international security first?

“I don't agree.

“Every good military commander understands that no campaign will succeed unless you secure your home base first.

“The people who let off bombs on London's public transport system were not agents of Saddam Hussein, they were British citizens.

“Two of the three people who allegedly plotted to let off bombs in Frankfurt were German-born, Fritz Gelowicz and Daniel Schneider, driven by an extreme ideology.

“Only from a position of security at home can states confidently promote security abroad.

“And in the modern world, I believe there are four types of security that any successful state needs to provide: institutional, cultural, economic and physical.

“Institutional security is vital because it provides the platform for stability and progress.

“But we should not make the mistake of assuming that institutional security is the same thing as democracy.

“Of course democracy promotes security because it enables states to make peaceful change.

“But there are some institutions that must come first: the rule of law and a strong civil society, with public institutions that people can trust.

“I believe one of the greatest sources of German security is your institutional strength: especially your commitment to regional government underpinned by the Constitution of the Federal Republic.

“The second form of security that modern states need is cultural security.

“A state without a clear and confident national identity creates the space for ethnic conflict and extremism.

“Here, we can learn from India's experience, dealing in challenging circumstances with the need to bind people together in a shared national identity.

“And we can see from Japan's economic success the vital importance of the third form of security that modern states need: economic security.

“It has enabled Japan to be a force for progress in Asia and around the world.

“Fourth, there is physical security: states without strong defences and secure borders are less able to deter aggression and stop terrorists and those who inspire them.

“States that provide these four types of security will be in a stronger position to provide both an example to others and assistance to others.

“For us in Britain, this requires action on a number of fronts that have been dangerously neglected in recent years.

“Promoting national cohesion and clamping down on people and organisations that undermine it.

“Strengthening our border protection – and I believe in this area we have a great deal to learn from Germany's border police, as I discussed with Minister of the Interior Schauble three weeks ago.

“Making sure our armed forces are properly supported with the training and equipment they need.

“And modernising our machinery of government to end the division between domestic and foreign security policy, instituting a new national security approach.

“These are all actions that we can and must take in the short-term, based on the principle of national security first.”

And here is an instructive item illustrating the shallow and unintegrated person of Gordon Brown the Clown.

“The word liberty appeared repeatedly in Brown's speech on Thursday. But the word liberalism appeared just once, in a passing reference to the Victorian era. There was something similarly bashful about his furtive treatment of Mill himself, recently voted Britain's greatest liberal. Again there was only a single reference to Mill, and it was only a casual one. A speech on British liberty that tiptoes around the legacy of Mill is a strange one, Hamlet without the prince.

“But it is stranger still in coming from someone who calls himself a conviction politician. Granted, a strong belief in the importance of liberty does not automatically make you a conviction liberal. But it certainly takes you a long way down that path - and most eventually complete the journey in some way. It is odd when it does not - and it deserves some explanation. But Brown is silent about his hesitation. He stands on the threshold of liberalism but does not say why he will not cross it.”

Interestingly, the author doesn’t get it. He doesn’t realise that the Clown is all theory and no realism. Brown is proto-typical confused socialist.

There is no connection in the mind of such socialists between the ‘answers’ they put down on exam papers on the one hand, and the real world on the other. This is a widespread problem with good parrots. Parrots are those who have internalised words by the hoard, and can trot out ‘answers’ to ‘questions’ like a well-oiled tape recorder, like an actor reeling out lines written by another. The actor has learnt in acting school, or under a director, which expression or emotion to fake. But the actor, or the examinee, has very little understanding, if any, of the meanings of the words or quotations they mouth. This is Brown, the ultimate empty suit, or plastic man.

This behaviour is far more widespread in this society than is recognised. It is an effect of teaching or conditioning to words, until the individual loses secure contact with reality. The product of this form of ‘education’ include a large proportion of the ‘good’ boys and girls who run Western society. It is very difficult for most people to easily recognise the difference between those who think independently, and those who are just working through procedures like well-programmed robots.

Like any religious fundy, Brown believes in his religion - socialism. The theory is just his way of getting ticks in exams, or gaining power.

end note
“It's Tricky Dicky from Yorba Linda
Hip hip hip hurrah.
He walks and he talks, he smiles, he frowns,
He does what a human can,
He's Tricky Dicky from Yorba Linda,
The genuine plastic man, hey!”

From Tricky Dicky by Country Joe Macdonald. Tricky Dicky was President Richard Nixon.

a ridiculous sentence - the auroran sunset

Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong had full knowledge of DNA proof of the innocence of his four victims.

Nifong hid this knowledge in an attempt to frame those four innocents on gang rape charges, in the Duke lacrosse rape case.

The mean “sexual abuse” sentence in the US is approximately 8 years. “Sexual abuse” includes not only rape, but also many minor offences.

In summary, Nifong attempted to steal at least 32 years of human life from innocents for personal gain.

Attempting to steal large chunks of human life is more normally known by terms such as “attempted murder”.

Nifong’s sentence for this crime: one day in prison.

Nifong was ably assisted by a lying female. She faces no charge, let alone one day in prison.

Rule of law depends on the cooperation of those who choose to submit to those laws. Failure to apply, or selective application of, a law brings all law into disrepute. This has a direct negative effect on the rule of law, reducing the security of every citizen’s freedom.

The absurd sentence of Mike Nifong is a civil liberties issue.

the web address for the article above is
https://www.abelard.org/news/civil-liberties2007.php#nifong_070907

freedom in america - the auroran sunset

Source code for breathalyzers across the country being forced into the public domain, despite police and government attempts to keep them secret.

“This isn't the first time breathalyzer source code has been the subject of legal scrutiny. A Florida court ruled two years ago that police can't use electronic breathalyzers as courtroom evidence against drivers unless the source code is disclosed. Other alleged drunk drivers have had charges thrown out because CMI refuses to reveal the Intoxilyzer source code.”

related material
Freedom I won’t - And then there were none by Eric Frank Russell

the web address for the article above is
https://www.abelard.org/news/civil-liberties2007.php#breathalyzer_freedom_usa_170807

“At least 20,000 police surveillance cameras are being installed along streets here in southern China and will soon be guided by sophisticated computer software from an American-financed company to recognize automatically the faces of police suspects and detect unusual activity.

“Starting this month in a port neighborhood and then spreading across Shenzhen, a city of 12.4 million people, residency cards fitted with powerful computer chips programmed by the same company will be issued to most citizens.

“Data on the chip will include not just the citizen's name and address but also work history, educational background, religion, ethnicity, police record, medical insurance status and landlord's phone number. Even personal reproductive history will be included, for enforcement of China's controversial "one child" policy. Plans are being studied to add credit histories, subway travel payments and small purchases charged to the card.”
—
“Every police officer in Shenzhen now carries global positioning satellite equipment on his or her belt. This allows senior police officers to direct their movements on large, high-resolution maps of the city that China Public Security has produced [...]”
—
“Since imperial times, a principal technique of social control has been for local government agencies to keep detailed records on every resident.”

the web address for the article above is
https://www.abelard.org/news/civil-liberties2007.php#china_surveillance_130807

sp.eye in the sky to join sp.eyes in the street - xavier

“The Hi Cam Microdrone was originally used in military reconnaissance operations. The drones, which are almost silent in use, can be sent up into the air within three minutes. They can operate with 10-megapixel stills cameras, digital video or infrared cameras and are flown either by remote control or by using programmed GPS navigation systems. The images they capture are recorded and sent to a support vehicle or directly to the force control room.”
—
“[...] the plane was classified as a toy and was therefore not restricted by Civil Aviation Authority requirements.” [Quoted from guardian.co.uk]

Image credit: thisislondon.co.uk

“According to the latest studies, Britain has a staggering 4.2million CCTV cameras - one for every 14 people in the country - and 20 per cent of cameras globally. It has been calculated that each person is caught on camera an average of 300 times daily.” [Quoted from thisislondon.co.uk, 31.03.2007]

related material
LA’s spy-in-the-sky drone sparks privacy concerns [20.06.2006]
New robot brain takes to the skies [18.12.2003]

the web address for the article above is
https://www.abelard.org/news/civil-liberties2007.php#spy_drone_uk_220507

engineers’ report on surveillance, privacy and social trust
[ about 40 pages of content text in 64-page .pdf]

“Privacy is a topic that we all feel strongly about. We all also resent the emergence of the 'surveillance society', yet demand that wrong-doers and terrorists are identified and apprehended before they can do mischief. We see the growing numbers of TV cameras in the streets and hear about biometric passports and identity fraud. Engineers' knowledge and experience can help to inform the debates that surround these contentious issues. The Royal Academy of Engineering offers this report as a contribution to these debates.”
—
“The report is divided into three parts:

• “the technological future;
• the impact of technology on privacy;
• and the effect of new technologies on trust.

“Each part outlines how new and emerging technologies might pose threats and discusses how new technologies can be used to deal with these threats and, where possible, diminish them. The first part begins with a look at the likely developments of technologies and the effects that they could have on everyday life.”
—
“R1 Systems that involve the collection, checking and processing of personal information should be designed in order to diminish the risk of failure as far as reasonably practicable. Development of such systems should make the best use of engineering expertise in assessing and managing vulnerabilities and risks. Public sector organisations should take the lead in this area, as they collect and process a great deal of sensitive personal data, often on a non-voluntary basis.

“R2 Many failures can be foreseen. It is essential to have procedures in place to deal with the consequences of failure in systems used to collect, store or process personal information. These should include processes for aiding and compensating individuals who are affected.

“R3 Human rights law already requires that everyone should have their reasonable expectation of privacy respected and protected. Clarification of what counts as a reasonable expectation of privacy is necessary in order to protect this right and a public debate, including the legal, technical and political communities, should be encouraged in order to work towards a consensus on the definition of what is a 'reasonable expectation'. This debate should take into account the effect of an easily searchable Internet when deciding what counts as a reasonable expectation of privacy.

“R4 The powers of the Information Commissioner should be extended. Significant penalties - including custodial sentences - should be imposed on individuals or organisations that misuse data. The Information Commissioner should also have the power to perform audits and to direct that audits be performed by approved auditors in order to encourage organisations to always process data in accordance with the Data Protection Act. A public debate should be held on whether the primary control should be on the collection of data, or whether it is the processing and use of data that should be controlled, with penalties for improper use.

“R5 Organisations should not seek to identify the individuals with whom they have dealings if all they require is authentication of rightful access to goods or services. Systems that allow automated access to a service such as public transport should be developed to use only the minimal authenticating information necessary. When organisations do desire identification, they should be required to justify why identification, rather than authentication, is needed. In such circumstances, a minimum of identifying information should be expected.

“R6 Research into the effectiveness of camera surveillance is necessary, to judge whether its potential intrusion into people's privacy is outweighed by its benefits. Effort should be put into researching ways of monitoring public spaces that minimise the impact on privacy - for example, pursuing engineering research into developing effective means of automated surveillance which ignore law-abiding activities.

“R7 Information technology services should be designed to maintain privacy. Research should be pursued into the possibility of 'designing for privacy' and a concern for privacy should be encouraged amongst practising engineers and engineering teachers. Possibilities include designing methods of payment for travel and other goods and services without revealing identity and protecting electronic personal information by using similar methods to those used for protecting copyrighted electronic material.

“R8 There is need for clarity on the rights and expectations that individuals have over their personal information. A digital charter outlining an individual's rights and expectations over how their data are managed, shared and protected would deliver that clarity. Access by individuals to their personal data should also be made easier; for example, by automatically providing free copies of credit reports annually. There should be debate on how personal data are protected - how it can be ensured that the data are accurate, secure and private. Companies, or other trusted, third-party organisations, could have the role of data banks - trusted guardians of personal data. Research into innovative business models for such companies should be encouraged.

“R9 Commercial organisations that select their customers or vary their offers to individuals on the basis of profiling should be required, on request, to divulge to the data subjects that profiling has been used. Profiling will always be used to differentiate between customers, but unfair or excessively discriminating profiling systems should not be permitted.

“R10 Data collection and use systems should be designed so that there is reciprocity between data subjects and owners of the system. This includes transparency about the kinds of data collected and the uses intended for it; and data subjects having the right to receive clear explanations and justifications for data requests. In the case of camera surveillance, there should be debate on and research into ways to allow the public some level of access to the images captured by surveillance cameras.”

old.new.old continue dishonestly to try to abolish jury trials - the real objective is to usurp still more power

The increasingly dangerous undermining of law and civil liberties by the Bliar/Clown socialists.

“That inalienable civil liberty - to be judged by ordinary citizens - granted by Magna Carta in 1215 has served ever since as the cornerstone for criminal justice among common law countries [...] ”

So far, four times, the bliar gang's attempts to abolish jury trial have been stymied by the UK Parliament.

(Of course this, despite protestations, has nothing whatsoever to do with the type of trial.)

“ [...] An investigation by Stephen Wooler, a lawyer in the Attorney-General’s office, reported in 2006 the opposite. The jury, he said, was not a factor in the trial’s collapse. Rather, he reported, the prosecutor, the judge and the Crown Prosecution Service were to blame. Interviews of the jurors in the Jubilee case, conducted by Wooler’s office, were revealed. His report stated: "The jury did not appear to have had a difficulty understanding the evidence or the essentials of the case." [...] ”
—
“ That revelation destroyed the Government’s case against jury trials. To justify their continued zeal, Labour’s law officers have scrabbled to quote "modernisation" and "streamlining" as the justification for their cause. Despite the evidence from the Jubilee inquiry, Lord Goldsmith argues that because of the strain, jurors cannot be asked to serve for more than four months. The opponents of abolition allege that his justification is the thin end of the wedge. Trials of terrorists, drug dealers and health and safety crimes are often longer and more complicated than fraud trials. To be certain of convictions, the Government would eventually hope to also abolish juries in those trials.”

related material
Prime recent and proposed attacks on civil rights in the United Kingdom: a list
An overview of Civil Liberties legislation since 1900

email email_abelard [at] abelard.org

© abelard, 2007, 22 january
all rights reserved