Inspired by Bensix I offer the following:

Aaronovitch: You should be very, very careful about comparing people to the Nazis. Incidentally, Hamas = Nazis.

Oh, and this worried me slightly:

More than a quarter of science teachers in state schools believe that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in science lessons, according to a national poll of primary and secondary teachers.

The Ipsos/Mori poll of 923 primary and secondary teachers found that 29% of science specialists agreed with the statement: “Alongside the theory of evolution and the Big Bang theory, creationism should be TAUGHT in science lessons”

I’ve little problem with the discussion of creationism. But the teaching of the doctrine is another matter. We shouldn’t teach creationism as a scientific point of view; it’s not, and doesn’t claim to be. The theory states that a divine being literally created life, the universe, and everything. As such, it’s explicitly based in faith, both in a god, and an idea of what that god might do. It isn’t an empicically tested hypothesis, as inclusion in a science lesson would suggest.

And yet that’s how it’ll be taken; because children expect what they’re taught in a Science to be demonstrably true. Far from challenging creationism, encouraging Science teachers to teach on it will simply lend it the perception of fact. We should teach pupils about creationism, and the debate that surrounds it - but in RS, along with every other belief system based in faith above empiricism.

Apologies for the lack of posting in recent days. A combination of sleep, procrastination, and tracking fluffy Siberian Tiger toys across the Northern Line have kept me occupied recently.

And now a lack of inspiration reigns. Very little springs to mind; beyond a brief and late comment that this is vile:

The government has been accused of trampling on individual liberties by proposing wide-ranging new powers for bailiffs to break into homes and to use “reasonable force” against householders who try to protect their valuables.

Under the regulations, bailiffs for private firms would for the first time be given permission to restrain or pin down householders. They would also be able to force their way into homes to seize property to pay off debts, such as unpaid credit card bills and loans.

What constitutes “reasonable force”? It’s rather open to interpretation. And, given the tendency of firms to employ bulky, muscular individuals of the temprament which allows them to ransack a home in perfect conscious, that’ll probably be a violent interpretation. This at a time when, with soaring energy costs and ugly mortgages (oh, and the rising unemployment, don’t forget that…), the bailiffs’ ire is most likely to fall on the cold and the old. Chicken Yoghurt puts it rather well:

It’s teaching all of us to never, ever, be poor. To never, ever, have a run of bad luck. Keep your head down and keep kissing the boss’ arse. Bite your tongue over your pay and conditions. Come in a bit earlier and stay a bit later. Don’t forget you’re the smallest of cog in this economy - a little fear should keep you lubricated and in good working order a little while yet.

It all makes glad I have few enough possessions at the moment. And worry slightly for when the government decides it wants the money for my education back…

I didn’t watch Boris’ Conference speech yesterday. I’d spent the previous evening drunk and crying on a friend’s shoulder, so didn’t really feel up to the inescapable horror of a Tory Conference.

I did, though, read the papers this morning. They told me much what I’d expected; our Mayor made a speech heavy on witticism and low on content. What content there was didn’t impress. Quoth BoJo:

“I say to the Labour government – you will not make this country or its capital more competitive by driving away talent. You cannot regulate your way out of a recession. You can certainly regulate your way into one,”

“No matter how much you may dislike the Masters of the Universe, my friends, there are plenty of other parts of the universe that would welcome them.”

Note the obvious flaws in his statement. Individuals who permit their institutions to lend money to people who can’t afford to pay it back, buy up similar debts, borrow on the anticipation of receipt of those initial debts to pay off these debts and so drive those institutions to the wall when credit or repayment runs out can hardly be described as “talent.” Nor can their creation of jobs be much applauded when they take those jobs back with the same ease.

The assault on regulation, meanwhile, lacks impact. Doesn’t he consider that it’s possible to institute some, limited regulation and so solve a problem without regulating businesses into the ground? Regulation occurs by degree, not by monolithic bloc. You can provide some regulation to protect both customers and institutions from certain irresponsible employees (to prevent the sheer amount of fiscal incestuousness inherent in this degree of entanglement, for example) without regulating everything. And that’s what is necessary.

Not, of course, that Boris provides any working alternative or hint of what he feels might be necessary. The policy he did provide proved predictable:

“I am pleased to announce that for the first time since the GLA was created, for the first time since London has had a mayor. I will not be coming back to the people and asking them for more money in tax. There will be no increase in our share of the council tax next year,” he said.

Well done, Boris. You cut taxes, and phrased it in the language of concern for individuals. You also failed to mention that this cut in tax would be funded by comes alongside a sizable rise in public transport fares; 11% in fact. A move which shifts the burden of payment from those who can afford it - that is, those with higher bills vaguely detirmined by your wealth - to those who can’t.

Odd that you can apply the logic that the credit crunch will make life difficult to some Londoners, but not others. Many who use public transport use it because they can’t afford a car; and so they need it, and they need it to remain affordable. The same cannot usually be said of those who pay higher rates of council tax, and who’ll benefit now.

Johnson claimed the content of his speech illustrated just what a Conservative would do in government. I worry intensely for 2010; that speech equated to a declaration of pride in the belief that the rich should pay less and the poor more, and that government just shouldn’t try to redress that balance. Just like Thatcher, then.

EDIT: I mistook which money came from which pot. See comments.

A Catholic school in Bury has banned pupils from receiving the Cervical Cancer vaccination. It claims it isn’t in the position to do so; governors worry that side-effects can include dizziness. Some pupils must worry that the side-effects of cervical cancer can include death.

The decision just doesn’t make sense. It isn’t on the overt fundamentalist grounds other groups tried to stop the vaccinations; the Vatican came out for the vaccine. Their complaint seems centred solely on the grounds that pupils might faint; despite reassurances from doctors and the unavoidable fact that the vaccine can prevent a deadly disease. Do they have no sense of proportionality?

The plot for ID Cards trudges on:

The first identity cards from the government’s controversial national scheme have been unveiled.

The biometric card will be issued from November, initially to non-EU students and marriage visa holders.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said the cards would allow people to “easily and securely prove their identity”.

So? Smith claims that these cards will make it easier for those here legally to prove that fact yet, if they’re here legally, they shouldn’t have to do so. It requires a lot of work and patience to enter this country legally from outside the EU. They have to prove their identity to do so - and once they have done, shouldn’t have to again. It’s incumbent on the government to enforce its laws without assaulting innocent individual’s liberty, and yet it clearly does so here.

But, there’s more:

“We all want to see our borders more secure, and human trafficking, organised immigration crime, illegal working and benefit fraud tackled. ID cards for foreign nationals, in locking people to one identity, will deliver in all these areas,” she added.

Don’t papers alreeady exist to help there? If the government feels they aren’t detailed enough, perhaps it should simply look into fixing that. It should be enough to add a fingerprint to immigration papers. They cannot be copied, and the need for a centralised database of details is negated by the useful fact that individuals carry their fingers with them and so can produce a fingerprint on demand.

And that possibility rather negates the argument that this is to the benefit of immigrants rather than the government. They don’t need to issue ID Cards, but will do so anyway. Presumably, they have a reason to do so, then; perhaps to accustom the population to the idea that they must justify their legal business at any time by forcing a group which can hardly protest to do so.

It fits with the next segment targetted; students and the young. People this age are, of course, used to proving their identity on a regular basis, softened by years of showing ID to buy alcohol or cigarettes. Like immigrants, the group has no strong political voice, and doesn’t vote in large numbers. So it’s another social division the government can foist ID Cards on with little trouble. The wider population becomes gradually used to the idea that they must carry ID Cards; so when they’re rolled out on a voluntary basis, more take them. And that suits this government.

Smith and the Home Office know there’s little active desire or support for a mass system of ID Cards. They can create that desire - or rather, weaken inbuilt suspicion - by fixing the idea that we should have to prove ourselves to the government. They can do that with less of a fuss by forcing vulnerable groups such as immigrants to do so first. And thus the idea becomes seen as normal; which it most definitely is not.

From the Guardian:

“Inflation-busting rises in bus and tube fares will be announced today by the mayor of London, Boris Johnson, in a move he will blame on the ‘reckless’ spending policies of his predecessor. The cost of travelling on London transport for adults will rise by more than inflation next year as a fares freeze imposed by Ken Livingstone is scrapped.”

Let’s be clear, Boris; this isn’t your predecessor’s fault. You cannot scrap a deal bringing cheap oil for public transport to London organised by that predecessor, and claim you can’t help fare-rises. Stop fighting the previous campaign and accept responsibility for your own mistakes.

And this is a mistake. Public transport exists for the benefit of the entire public; when a section of that public can’t afford to use that transport, it ceases to be public. These fare rises will make it increasingly difficult for the less well-off - those who need public transport most, as they can’t afford private. And this during the approach to a recession, when we’re all finding it hard.

But this is all part of the Gilligan revolution, isn’t it? I wait for the article letting us know we should all stop whining about the destruction of public transport, which is, after all, just a socialist “vanity project“…

Apparently, the absurd policing at Kingsnorth might cost up to £3 million. £3 million, that is, to intimidate protestors, assault liberty and break their own rules beyond repair. Who’d like to start the list of where that money could’ve been better spent?

The Police surrounding Kingsnorth Climate Camp were issued a booklet entitled “Policing Protest” by the sinister sounding National Extremism Tactical Coordination Unit. Indymedia brings us a dropped booklet - and very englightening it is too. The pamphlet is very vague in places, with key terms defining what precisely constitutes an offence left to individual judgement and whatever’s considered, “ordinary,” by the office (see p7).

So, are there any dangerous extremists at Kingsnorth? I think it’s time to consult the booklet. Section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986 states:

An offence is committed:

I if a person uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or

II Distributes or displays to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another, or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be used or it is likely that such violence will be provoked.

So, in short - if an individual frightens another individual with the threat of violence. Did that happen at Kingsnorth? Why yes, comrades. You see that snarling man in the centre wearing a fluorescent jacket brandishing what looks to be a blunt object, as though he’d do violence against those unarmed citizens; he looks to be just such a dangerous extremist. And don’t those unarmed civilians look scared?

Note also that provocation to unlawful violence is an offence - one the Police already stand accused of. Baton charges and full riot gear aren’t usually deployed against pacifists and vegans. It’s uneccessary, and smacks of an attempt to intimidate said vegans. So when those baton charges are carried out, they become offences under Section 4A of the same Act:

An offence is committed if with intent to cause a person intentional harassment, alarm or distress, a person:

I uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
II displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

Not looking good, is it? Similar offences took place under Section 5 of the Public Order Act. Unless, of course, smashing the windows of supply vans and the confiscation of materials essential to basic hygiene isn’t an attempt to harrass protestors.

Perhaps the Kent Police will fare better under Section 12 of the Public Order Act, which deals with public processions. It states that conditions may be imposed on activity if it might result in:

I serious public disorder

II serious damage to property

III serious disruption to the life of the community

IV the purpose of procession is the intimidation of others with a view to compelling them not to do an act they have a right to do, or to do an act they have a right not to do.

Let’s treat the columns of police vans that made their way to Kingsnorth as a procession. They’re guilty of all four offences, I’m afraid, thus:

I Baton charges rather count, I think.

II See exhibit A; note also the theft of soap, crayons, board games, essential building materials, etc.

III We can treat the Climate Camp as a community; it has its own food supplies, kitchens, and even neighbourhoods. The Police have surrounded this community, search anyone who wants to enter it, cut off its food supplies and stolen numerous personal possessions (see II). This seems likely to have disrupted the community.

IV Peaceful Protest is a right guaranteed under the Human Rights Act. The protestors haven’t yet perpetrated violence, so can be assumed to be peaceful; they’ve thus a legal right to do as they have. The Police have interrupted their protest, and so compelled them not to do an act they have a right to do.

Section 14 concerns spontaeneous protest, so we’ll let them off here; the Police have clearly planned this for a while.

We move onto the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 now. Section 42 concerns harrassment of the individual within their home. It states directions may be given should:

I that person is present outside or in the vicinity of any premises that are used by any individual ( “the resident”) as his dwelling;
II that individual believes, on reasonable grounds, that that person is present there for the purpose (by his presence or otherwise) of representing to the resident or another individual (whether or not one who uses the premises as his dwelling), or of persuading the resident or such another individual that he should not do something that he is entitled or required to do or
that he should do something that he is not under any obligation to do;
III that individual also believes, on reasonable grounds, that the presence of that person (either alone or together with that of any other persons who are also present) amounts to, or is likely to result in, the harassment of the resident; or is likely to cause alarm or distress to the resident.

We’ve already defined the Climate Camp as a settlement; it follows that tents and shelters contained in that settlement should be defined as (temporary) dwellings. The Police have entered into that settlement, patrolled outside the dwellings within, and taken possessions from those dwellings. That smacks of harrassment - and so, another offence against their own rules.

There follow a long string of inapplicable sections, before we reach Section 68 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. It states an offence is committed if an individual trespasses and, “does anything to intimidate persons on that land,” to deter them from any legal activity. So - how does entry into a private tent and taking soap, with the immediate intent to prevent protestors from engaging in the legal activity of washing, and the wider intent of making legal protest less attractive, sound? Like an offence, that’s what.

The section regarding Offence by Harrassment is obscured. But, given that we’ve already shown harrassment has taken place, we can assume the police are culpable here, too. Likewise Section 4 of the Protection from Harrassment Act 1997, which makes it an offence to, “pursue a course of conduct, ” which, “causes fear,” that violence will be used against them; that Baton Charges were threatened and occured incriminates the Police here. Preventing food supplies reaching the camp almost certainly required a public highway to be obscured; an offence under Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980.

So, that makes the Police at Kingsnorth guilty (at least) of offences under the Public Order Act 1986; the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001; the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994; the Protection from Harrassment Act 1997 and the Highways Act 1980. Quite a charge sheet. But where will we keep them all while they’re on trial?

The Police can only justify their existence when they protect liberty. And yet, at Kingsnorth, they’ve demonstrably abused the law - and broken it on numerous occasions. The Climate Camp protestors have exercised their democratic right to protest, and the police have tried to stop them. In a more firebrand mood (or when drunk), I’d denounce them - and their masters at Westminster - as enemies of popular freedoms who fully deserve to be torn apart in a wild and bloody revolution as the people reclaim their rights. As it is, I’ll merely shake my head and say that I really do worry…

(Hat-tips for evidence: Indymedia, JimJay, Coventry Greens, Stuart Jeffrey)

It isn’t a great week for the Home Office, is it? First, overt abuse of police power at Kingsnorth; and now the Lords splatter 42 Days. It’s just a shame it’s in August, where it’s easier for them to ignore the obvious by sitting on a beach…