Burqas

Whether Muslims should be allowed to wear burqas in public seems to be the question of the moment. I watched the views of the panel on Question Time for a few minutes last night with a mixture of disdain and disgust. The panellists were split between those who would reintroduce sumptuary laws (does wearing a sack over your head count as sumptuous? Dumptuous perhaps) and those who would ignore the issue.

Obviously I'm against the former, but it has to be said that I do think there's an issue that shouldn't be ignored.

The problem is that there are vast numbers of people who feel threatened and alienated by people parading the streets in what amounts to a disguise. They don't like it.

I don't take any particular view on whether they are right to dislike burqas or not, but the fact is that they are not allowed to express their dislike, even in non-violent or non-agressive ways. People are banned from discriminating against the burqa-wearers. They can't turn them away from their shops and businesses, saying "I'm sorry I'm not serving you while you are wearing a disguise".  Society, in its wisdom, has decreed that these are crimes, and hate crimes to boot.

The ability to discriminate gives the host culture the ability to gently apply a cost to the wearing of burqa. You will probably still get served in the bank, but you might just have to go a bit further to find one that would rather have your money than enforce a burqa-free clientele. You might have to give up swimming because the pool won't take you. Perhaps the garage won't fix your car if you refuse to show your face.

I've blogged before about how the introduction of authoritarian laws often leads to a spiral of authoritarianism, with all sorts of unpleasant spin offs. The anti-discrimination laws are a direct affront to freedom of association and have encouraged emigrants to refuse to integrate and to develop a kind of apartheid, demanding, for example, muslim-women-only swimming sessions. When this cultural apartheid becomes resented by the host culture, politicians respond the only way they know how, with more authoritarianism - banning burqas and so on. This will no doubt be followed by bans on nuns' habits, no doubt in the interests of even-handedness, but just adding to the downward spiral of resentment.

But won't this lead to signs outside guest houses saying "No moslems" or "No burqas"? Possibly it will, and that would be ugly for sure. But the current approach is ugly too and the result, a downward spiral of apartheid and authoritarianism is vile in the extreme. Better to have an ugly approach with a happy ending than more and more ugliness.

Politicians' responses to the problem will lead only to resentment from Moslems banned from wearing burqas (there are apparently some who do so willingly) or from the host culture, forced to accept and deal with people with whom they want no dealings. Politicians can't solve this problem. They can only stand back and allow society to solve it on its own.

Trial without jury

The Court of Appeal has passed a historic ruling allowing the first ever criminal trial to be heard without a jury.

Three judges in London, headed by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, gave the go-ahead because of a "very significant" danger of jury tampering.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but the approaches to self-defence of every government in the last fifty years have been predicated on the police being there to protect the innocent. And yet here they are saying that they cannot defend a twelve members of a jury for a short period.

Is the loss of the right jury trial a reasonable price to pay for having a disarmed citizenry?

Discuss.

Human rights kill civil liberties

Canada to remove "truth" as a defence to hate speech laws? The Canadian Human Rights Commission is demanding just that, according to this interview with journalist Ezra Levant. It's that whole Human Rights Kill Civil Liberties meme again.

Educational philosophies and constitutional acts

One interesting aspect of the Badman review of home education is its demand that parents should once a year submit plans for what they are intending to teach children for the next twelve months. This seems rather extraordinary to me, since the school my children attend claim that they cannot give me such a plan for the following week.

As some have observed, this will signal the end of one important thread of home education, namely child-led, autonomous learning. The whole point of autonomous learning is that it's unplanned.

It's interesting to consider the legal implications of the proposed changes. According to the Human Rights Act,

...the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.

Now if one's philosophical convictions are that education shall be child-led and autonomous, it seems to me that the government will breach the HRA if it insists that autonomous education is verboten. Now of course, the HRA isn't worth the paper it's written on since the courts will not strike down an act of parliament which breaches it. Instead they will merely issue a statement to the effect that a breach has occurred. I wonder though if one could ask the government, or perhaps ask the courts to enquire, if their intention is to breach the HRA. If it is, then it might be reasonable to ask them to say so explicitly.

Badman is not good

Terribleman, appallingman, sickoman, tyrantman, evilman, sinfulman, ruinousman, rottenman, putrescentman, baseman, poisonousman, wickedman.

The Badman report on home education is out, and it's monstrous. Forced entry to people's homes is recommended. Revolutions have been started over this sort of thing.

I'm too angry to say anything sensible. Read Lisa instead.

Home Ed and another fake charity

Signals are being sent out that the government's umpteenth review of Home Education will advise the government to "get tough on home tuition".

The government will be advised to crack down on home education to ensure it is not being used as a cover for child abuse or for parents to avoid educating their children at all, in an independent review that has angered families that home-school their children.

The inquiry into home education was ordered by ministers in January to investigate whether home education is used to conceal "child abuse such as neglect, forced marriage, sexual exploitation or domestic servitude".

As has been pointed out, this decision will have implications for everyone, because it destroys the principle that parents are responsible for their children's education.

It was fairly clear that the Badman review of HE was in fact a sham, set up as a cover for the introduction of a predetermined policy outcome, and there has been a litany of fake charities doing their masters' bidding and queuing up to smear the home ed community. I've posted before about the NSPCC, but today's article has a new one: the National Children's Bureau.

Half of the NCB's £20m income comes from government departments. Add in their National Lottery funding and you get to a whopping 73%.

And what did the NCB have to say on the HE review? Here's their principal officer Jacqui Newvell:

We know a lot of home educators are doing a great job but our concern is the minority who slip thought the net.

The problem is of course, that nobody seems to have identified anyone who has "slipped through the net". There just don't seem to be any instances of home ed being used as a cover for abuse.  This underlying purpose of the review seems not to have been about child protection. Instead, it's about expansion of bureaucratic empires. It's a "solution" in search of a problem.

One for the shopping list

Heresy Corner reviews Ben Wilson's new book, What Price Liberty?

Justin Webb on America

Justin Webb takes a lot of stick from the commenters at Biased BBC, who see him as the identikit BBC socialist propaganda-monger. I've never been entirely sure about this, particularly since he took up the post of America editor.

Listen to him being interviewed on Excess Baggage, where he was punting his new book about America under Obama. He makes a very eloquent defence of the undiscovered middle of America and repeats the observation that he made some time ago that America is a very gentle place, at least outside of a few city centres. He tells the story of Virgin, Utah where there is a city ordinance decreeing that everyone must own a gun, and states that he thinks that Virgin is likely to be a very ordered and decent place (or something to that effect - I forget his exact words).  In fact, throughout the interview he repeats the observation of the gentleness of American society. When you think about it, this is a remarkable thing for a BBC journalist to say - it is surely the antithesis of BBC-think to make a connection between gun ownership and peaceful coexistence, no matter whether you think he's right or not.

I can't help but wonder if Webb has gone to America and turned into a second amendment advocate - if so, he surely can't say so - it would surely be the end of his career - but he seems to feel able to point to places like Virgin and quietly point out that it's not quite like we have been lead to believe.

It's an interesting observation and a useful contribution to the debate on the shambles that is British society. Credit where credit's due.

A fishing trip

BBC:

The Metropolitan Police has seized £35m during an operation targeting safety deposit boxes used by criminal gangs.

Officers also recovered guns, drugs, child pornography and even illegal elephant tusks when 3,500 deposit boxes at three London centres were raided.

If 3500 boxes were raided, it's fair to say that this was a fishing trip rather than a targeted search.  Ever woke up with a feeling that you were in a bad dream?

State provision and the database state

I think we are probably heading, as a society, for a pretty major decision about our relationship to the state.  As things stand, the database state is starting to be rolled out and there may still be an opportunity to roll it back. Don't believe me? take a look at this:

This 21st century school system, which is beginning to develop, will look and feel very different to the one we have been used to. It will be one in which, to achieve their core mission of excellent teaching and learning, schools look beyond traditional boundaries, are much more outward-facing, working in closer partnership with children, young people and parents; other schools, colleges, learning providers and universities; other children’s services; the third sector, the private sector and employers; and the local authority and its Children’s Trust partners.

Still with me? Read on...

[W]e will further incentivise co-location of wider children’s services on school sites. Better use of the opportunities provided by modern technology will enhance all of the dimensions of a world-class education system.

Do you see where this leads? In the not-so-very-distant future, you will pack little Jonny or little Jill off to school and you will be handing them over to a surrogate parent. Suddenly real parents will start to look rather peripheral to their children's upbringing. In this brave new world, every aspect of their lives will be interfered with by the school: they will be inspected by social services, they will be examined by doctors and nurses and dentists and opticians and child welfare officers and the NSPCC, every detail being written down and recorded on the database from where it can never be removed. Your children will grow up the state knowing everything about them. The school will become the foundation upon which the database state will be built.

This is why state provision of anything is dangerous. So terribly, terribly dangerous.

This is why we must privatise the schools.

The quotes are from here, which I found on a HomeEd Facebook site.

The government's bill of rights and responsibilities

So we find ourselves at the top of a slippery slope, with Jack Straw breathing down our necks and pushing us firmly in the small of the back. Today the government publishes its discussion paper on a proposed new bill of rights and responsibilities. And if any of you were not convinced by my arguments the other day about the danger posed to society by the government and its human rights agenda, take a look at this extract.

The Government wishes to explore whether a future Bill of Rights and Responsibilities ought to have more prominence to principles such as that underpinning Article 17 [of the ECHR, which prevents people using their convention rights to quash the rights of others]; and to the principles of fair balance and the doctrine of proportionality, both of which are inherent threads running throughout the Convention. Such expression would make these principles more transparent to all citizens, and, if enshrined in legislation, could help guide the courts when they come to balance individual rights against limitations necessary in the wider interests of the community.

Note how he neatly elides from a convention article protecting the rights of the individual from the illegitimate actions of other individuals, to a demand that the rights of the individual be subsumed beneath "the wider interests of the community". The idea that the societal interests should take precedence of individuals is of course a fundamental tenet of socialism, and one that has lead to such delights of history as the Killing Fields, the Cultural Revolution and Stalin's famines.

In my book, the wider interests of the community can frankly go and take a running jump. 

Straw's intentions are patently transparent. He intends incorporate socialism into the constitution. He intends to end individual freedom. His bill of rights is the communist manifesto dressed up to look like Magna Carta.

Far better we adopt mine.

Human rights and liberties

Lanna at Head Desk has been pondering the question of the universality (or not) of human rights, and I started to write a comment there, but I decided it was worth turning it into a full posting here.

I've been wondering about the distinction between human rights and liberties for some time now and in recent weeks have come to the conclusion that a human right essentially defines an entitlement and therefore a duty on government (and perhaps on others), while a liberty defines a restriction on government (and perhaps on others). I've also concluded that human rights are potentially disastrous.

Here's an example of why.

Lanna's a home educator, and as I've commented previously, there is an ongoing campaign against HE by the government. They have instituted a review of the whole area - the fourth in three years IIRC - and this appears to have been preordained to conclude that there is a need for home inpections by state-approved monitors. Once in place, this will no doubt lead in time to the outlawing of HE. By way of a softening-up exercise, the government has arranged for its client charity, the NSPCC, to make vague insinuations of child abuse in the direction of home educators, which Lanna reckons is a fairly obvious attempt to stigmatise the whole community before regulating and legislating against them. It certainly looks very much like the similar treatment dished out to smokers and foxhunters in the past and so I think she may well be right.

So what has this got to do with human rights? Well, from the HE perspective, how come then the state can demand entry to your home? How come they can force your children to talk to them? How come they can demand that you not be present? Haven't you got a right to privacy? The right to a family life? You would hope, wouldn't you that your human rights would protect you against this sort of thing. But you'd be wrong. The government will argue that the mere possibility of the loss of the child's rights justifies the loss of parental rights to privacy.

And this is the problem with human rights. By creating entitlements, but no understanding of how to balance different people's entitlements off against each other, they create confusion and sow discord and eventually leave the field of debate entirely empty, ready for government to legislate as they wish. 

In this case the government has decided that the parent's rights are secondary. (This rather conveniently coincides with their own prejudices and the needs of their financial backers in the trades unions and the educational establishment, who of course want to stop state schools from haemorraging pupils.) But it is clear that they could just as easily have referred to the right to privacy of the parents and decided something completely different. The same set of human rights can give entirely different outcomes depending on who happens to be in power at the time and the whims of whoever is funding them.

Human rights give governments the power to do what they want.

So how would it work with a liberties-based approach?  The first thing to notice is that a liberty doesn't say anything about any individual's entitlements. But by defining what government may not do, the definition of a liberty implies how the rights of the individuals are to be balanced, and moreover, it implies them in a way that makes the outcome completely clear:  there is only one possible conclusion that can be drawn.

For our HE example, the US Fourth Amendment (this is clearer for explaining the principles) simply says that the government may not enter the home without reasonable suspicion and a warrant. While this doesn't actually seem to address the question at hand - of how to balance the rights/needs/entitlements of parent and child, these things all flow naturally from the elucidation of the liberty. The rights of the child do receive appropriate protection ("if there's reasonable suspicion, we'll come and check things out") as do those of the parents ("we'll leave you alone unless there's reasonable suspicion").

Liberty works. It has worked for hundreds of years when it has been given the chance. Human rights don't. They never have.

Could I be a terrorist?

There's an interesting article at the American site, Freedom Politics. It seems that in the state of Missouri at least, libertarians are seen as potential terrorists. There's a list of "red flags" that law enforcement officials should be on the look-out for. They're all based on the American situation, but translated into a UK context they are as follows:

• Support for minor parties like the Libertarians and UKIP
• Talk of “New World Order” conspiracy theories
• Opposition to the Bank of England and support of the gold standard
• Opposition to Army involvement in national security
• Opposition to the EU
• Opposition to universal military service
• Tax resistance
• Possession of subversive literature: “pictures, cartoons, bumper stickers that contain anti-government rhetoric. Most of this material will depict the HR Revenue and Customs, ACPO, HSE, UN, Police and EU in a derogatory manner.”

I don't know about you, but I would sign up to the majority of these. I wonder if I'm on a terrorist watch list somewhere?

Royal Bank of Scotland asks about customers' political views

This is unbelievable. According to The Spectator, the state-owned Royal Bank of Scotland is asking for customer's political affiliations as part of their account opening procedures.

Read the whole thing.

Sean Gabb on the constitution

Sean Gabb is always a provocative speaker. Here he is discussing the need for a revolution in the UK. I've heard people who are much less radical than Gabb saying the same thing.