Without the state

Visitors

23 United States
19 United Kingdom
3 Australia
3 Spain
3 Austria
2 Canada
2 Ireland
1 South Africa
1 Finland
1 Netherlands
1 France
1 Israel

Next time you visit - why not leave a calling card?

Bidding has ended for this item

No comments - just read it!

[via Irish Eyes]

Teenage kissing - the new sexcrime? - otherwise known as "When the kissing had to stop"

More on government intervention into private lives - 'but we won't enforce it'

The BBC reports on the new Sexual Offences Act.

Furtive fumbling behind the bike sheds is illegal under laws coming into force this week...

The most unusual aspect of this new law, however, is that the authorities have no intention of enforcing it. ...

The government has told the Crown Prosecution Service (which makes the decision as to whether cases presented to it by the police should go to court) that it should not normally prosecute the under-16s for having consensual sex, let alone for "sexual touching".

As one of the comments on the BBC web site says - why on earth bring in legislation and then say they are not going to use it?

The end of democracy?

Catching up on my reading I came across this article. by Richard Rorty. [via Normblog]

If terrorists do get their hands on nuclear weapons, the most momentous result will not be the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. It will be the fact that all the democracies will have to place themselves on a permanent war footing.

The measures their governments will consider it necessary to impose are likely to bring about the end of many of the socio-political institutions that emerged in Europe and North America in the past two centuries. They may return the West to something like feudalism.

Like Norm I find this astounding - apart from the fact that exploding a nuclear device in Europe could lead to millions of deaths, I cannot understand how that is somehow not so bad as the restrictions on political activity which would - and I agree there - inveitably follow. However this rather strange statement is at odds with the rest of the article where the author clearly understands the point of terrorism - to destabilise society by inflicting terror and in the wake of that destabilisation subvert people who would not otherwise be willing to accept your message.

That is why internment in Northern Ireland in the end failed, that is why the detention of foreign nationals without trial will in the end fail and that is why the US/UK and their allies in Iraq are poised on a knife edge. We can already see how people who supported the overthrow of Saddam in Iraq are begining to resent the presence of foreign troops. This may be unreasonable, it may be irrational, but it was predictable.

The ends do not justify the means and we have seen, in a small way, the consequences of such utilitiarian attitudes in British law already. Consider the words of Lord Denning in the case of the Birmingham Six

"If the six men win, it will mean that the police were guilty of perjury, that they were guilty of violence and threats, and that the convictions were erroneous. This is such an appalling vista that every person in the land would say: 'It cannot be right that these actions should go any further.’ It is better to keep innocent men in prison, than to let them go free and bring the system into disrepute."

In the end Rorty's message is straightforward and I believe valid - we cannot protect democracy by destroying it. If in the end by our response to terrorism we end up doing the terrorists' work for them they will have won. That will be a tragedy which in the end could lead to the deaths of as many people as the worst terrorist atrocity.

Addendum:

See this post from Maria Farrell at Crooked Timber about a measure being pushed in the EU.

Ireland, Britain, France and Sweden have proposed that the European Council of Ministers pass a Framework Decision on the retention of communications and mobile phone location data throughout the EU. This is the latest in an ongoing effort of certain European law enforcement interests (led by the UK, pushed by the US) to create a total surveillance capacity over anyone who uses a communications device of any kind, anywhere in the EU. This is sad, bad and disastrous news.

For the source on the story go to Statewatch here

Ben Hayes of Statewatch comments:

"If this proposal was a genuine anti-terrorism measure it would be clearly restricted to terrorist offences. The fact that it is so broad as to potentially cover any crime shows just how cynically EU governments are exploiting the climate engendered by 'September 11' and now 'March 11'.

This is a proposal so intrusive that that Ashcroft, Ridge and company can only dream about it, exceeding even the US Patriot Act.

What is needed is good intelligence on specific threats, rather than mass surveillance of everyone, generating more data than can usefully be analysed. The increase in convictions of people exchanging child pornography has come without wide-ranging data retention. This proposal is disproportionate, unnecessary and has no place in a democracy."

Civil rights abuses

This post at Crooked Timber references an article in the Financial Times. Its the commentary however which I think gets it on the button.

It’s not My Lae, and it’s not on the same plane as what went on under Saddam Hussein. But it’s symptomatic of a more general moral deadening that’s taking place...

Don't get your doctor angry!

While following up the item from Anthony Cox, I came across this article which seemed of interest for my current Open University assignment (Which theory offers better safeguards for animal welfare - contractarianism, or the indirect duties view? - if you are interested).

What really caught my eye however was this comprehensive filleting of one of the respondents. It certainly made me want to stay on the right side of any doctor I meet!

Good and Bad Manners 2

Following on from the previous post, just around the corner from that building is this. I could have asked for windows a little less like holes in the wall but in general it fits in comfortably. It certainly doesn't damage the wonderful calm quiet central square it faces.

Incidently this hasn't always been such a peaceful place - the corner of the park in the left hand photograph is where PC Yvonne Fletcher was killed by someone in the Libyan Embassy. The memorial to her was still covered with flowers when I visited the square on Monday.

Good and Bad manners

I've always felt that one of the ways in which much modern architecture (by which I mean post WW2) fails is that it is simply bad-mannered - it shouts out 'ME ME' and elbows its way to your attention without regard for anyone else around. Who ever thought such a crude box would sit happily in this context? Did it ever even enter the architects head to try? At street level it's even worse - look at the crudely detailed facade at pavement level. It is like the fat boy elbowing his way into the crowd around the food at a party.

(I'm sorry for the crude layout of this post, I'm trying to get to grips with the display options in Typepad.)

How many people does it take to change a light bulb

Anthony Cox reports on this on Black Triangle.

Unfortunately it isn't a joke (but do follow the linkand read the comments!) In one of Christopher Alexander's books (I can't track down the specific reference but I think it's either "The Timeless Way of Building" or "The Oregon Experiment") he reports on a design fault in the university building in which he worked (ironically the School of Architecture!) which led to the flourescent lights flickering constantly. The cost of remedying the fault was enormous because the design 'feature' was effectively embedded in the building - so they carried on flickering.

Too often the so called economies of scale are actually diseconomies - we should be trying to do things smaller not larger - and that applies to social architecture as much as with the built type. Didn't someone once say "Small is Beautiful"?

Zimbabwe Cricket tour

Normally I would not expect to write about cricket - about the only sport I find more boring to watch is golf (assuming you don't count darts as a sport!). However the forthcoming England tour to Zimbabwe raises all sorts of other issues that do interest me.

Some of these problems are described by Norman Geras on his blog today. It seems to me though that the political issues surrounding the tour expose many of the inconsistencies in what passes for current political commentary in the media. Those who in other circumstances oppose government intervention in sport are calling for a clear instruction from the Foreign Secretary not to go, while others who would normally be happy with government intervention are backing off because they are worried about being seen to attack a black led government in public.

My own view is that I don't suppose Mugabe was any less murderous than he is now when the tour was arranged. The E&W Cricket Board may have shot themsleves in the foot by arranging the tour in the first place and that could mean they have to bear the costs of that decision - incluing the loss of the 2005 Ashes competition. Some compromise may be possible, but I'm not holding my breath - the combination of international sporting bureaucrats and the British Government doesn't seem likely to produce a speedy answer.

Straw is prepared to allow a debate in both houses of Parliament and MPs would be given a free vote on the issue of whether England should tour Zimbabwe this autumn. While not amounting to a direct ban by the Government, a vote against the tour would carry great weight.

I have to say however that I'm uncomfortable with the position of the ICC, which seems to be based on a rather authoritarian view of government which can simply forbid private citizens and groups to travel.

Probably another case of 'If I were you I wouldn't start from here'.