It’s an interesting question that’s been kicking around for some years now: ID Cards. Why?

It’s become increasingly, achingly clear that they’ll be useful for anything. The only determined advocate is someone who stands to make massive amounts of cash out of their introduction. The implementation would cost an immense amount of money that we couldn’t really spare before this recession reduced the amount of money available for the state. And any idea so terrible it’s drawn together Tony Benn and UKIP is clealy not too wise to implement.

But even politically it is difficult to see any advantage. When it was matched by the Tories it was conceivable to see this as a piece of clothes stealing but now they are opposing the policy we are left with the preposterous notion of Labour winning over social rightists. Quite simply this isn’t going to happen. It seemed possible after that “Hug-a-hoody” stuff but since that phrase was quickly traded in for “Broken Britain” they were tucked back into the fold nicely. What Labour is left with is a policy that causes them to lose out massively amongst civil liberties voters. There are two other major parties offerinng to scrap the proposals and for those who this is a primary concern its fairly hard to justify not voting for either in the case of being situation in a marginal.

So either in terms of doing any good or in strategy the policy is dead weight. So why keep it?

Three words: the Lib Dems.

Prior to this identity idiocy there was one major offer Labour could put on the table for this lot if it came to a hung parliament. If they submitted to reform of the one area Liberal Democrats really care about, voting systems, and implemented Proportional Representation they could be assured a coalition. They could also be assured that that coalition was one they would have to get used to, as for the forseeable future a Lib-Lab union would be the only imaginable set-up British politics could handle.

Now this was something which Labour was never really going to stomach, but if you want to know why they are still keen on this daft idea consider this: at the moment the Labour Party partisans have united in a fashion which would have seemed implausible only a year or so ago. Blairite, Brownite, these terms have rapidly become meaningless as factionalism is overlooked. Backed against the wall they stand as one.

Now do you really imagine that after all that pride swallowing they are going to smile and accept that a Third Party will prop them up forever?

It was unlikely that the same people who had enjoyed an overwhelming landslide were ever going to let that happen, but after the amount of disregarding of grudges they’ve had to perform already there is simply no way that they are going to let the Liberal Democrats seize the position of kingmakers. No, the upper echelons of the Labour Party hierarchy wants to maintain the present electoral system: if for no other reason that in some ways the constant threat of the Tories was what this pack of right wingers keep the substantial left at bay so effectively.

So how do ID Cards fit into this intrigue? Simple: they’re both negligible and disposal to Labour, crucial and central to the Liberal Democrats.

To the LDs the proposed database and card system is the epitome of New Labour dependence upon regressive statism. This is the issue which enthuses just about all of them and is one of the very few that is able to unite this inherently bi-sected coalition of social democrats (wondering just when the hell that started being the extreme left) and liberals (wondering why we can’t get back to the 18th century already, as they rather enjoyed that one). For this reason ID Cards make life a lot easier for Nick Clegg.

‘New Politics’ Established Via Sustaining The Status Quo

Clegg hasn’t clearly stated that he’d push for PR in the advent of being a coalition maker. In fact he seems to have waffled about something called ‘New Politics’ when asked about the issue. What this mist of vagueness actually means is anyone’s guess, but hopefully its something other than what it sounds like: the ominously complimentary harmonising with Cameron’s constant calls for a “Change” that we’ve been hearing ever since he stole that line off of someone who actually meant it. Or else letting whichever party’s bigger form a highly vulnerable an ineffective minority government (see ref: Canada). There’s a chance that Clegg does want the policy that lets the LibDems claim the number of seats they’re pretty much indisputably entitled to, but there’s also a (far greater) chance that he’s an ineffectual faffer who won’t push as far and as hard as he can.

In which case…

Brown declares “LibDems! Join ranks with us and I’ll get rid of those nasty ID Cards, since that’s how consensus politics works”. Clegg is able to push for this and maybe another few tokens in some behind-closed-doors mutterings and then can return to his party with a substantial scalp: the ID database has been tossed in the skip. The second most important issue the LibDems all care about has been sorted and hey, who cares about the most since they will be in government (Vince Cable replacing Darling? Perhaps, perhaps…) and thus it seems like FPTP has delivered the goods anyway.

Will they be happy with ti? No. But will that be far more tolerable than if he’d showed up saying “No PR, I’m afraid…But we have got a few cabinet spots and some changes to EU relations legislation which I…” If he did that he’d probably get fucking deposed. Which would rather complicate and extend the formation of any coalition, of course.

So: under this anaylsis Brown maintains a policy he doesn’t really care about since others do and the seats that it’ll lose him are of less importance than the leverage it will grant him if it comes to forging a coalition. And thus the presence of the LibDems endangers our nation’s civil liberties. Without them Labour would have dropped this policy like a stone. With it, they’ll lose some seats to the LDs and Tories but have a last line of defence against PR.

Tom suggests a very plausible strategy for Boris’ spinning strategy:

Hmm, Boris can always say he’s looking forward to working closely with the next appointment on KNIFE CRIME and YOUNG HOODIE MUGGERS etc. The spin is obvious and easy, show Boris as the Voice of the People, we need change, fresh start, new broom, Blair unfortunately tained by the failed policies of the Labour past, yada ya. Job’s a good ‘un. I should do this for a living.

That assumes he gets his way; as well he might, given the subservience of the London papers and Blair’s numerous enemies on either side of the spectrum. But it could go wrong.

Blair’s statement made it clear from the start that Boris forced him out. That makes the move look political, and that could play badly. The police exist to enforce the legislation of democratically elected bodies. The need for that legislation to be applied universally and without prejudice means that the police force must exist without political influence. Democratic bodies should exist to ensure the force remains accountable and enforces the laws properly - but it must itself remain free from interference from partisan individuals.

Democracy comes in the formulation of the law, not its application, which should remain the same no matter who does the application. So when a politician clearly edges a public servant out of their job, we should worry. Blair is abused as a political appointment, but his political resignation matters just as much - it’s exactly the same principle, after all.

And, if Boris did force Blair out, that raises a perhaps more damaging charge; that of political immaturity. Blair gives the impression that Boris wanted him gone largely out of dislike and disagreement. And yet that’s what you’ll encounter every day in public, and indeed general, life. You won’t like everyone you meet, and you won’t agree with everyone you work with; but you need to accept that and move on if you want to ever get something done.

That Boris apparently couldn’t do that here could be made to work against him. The opposition could easily use this, and the rash of resignations from his office over the Summer, to form a narrative of incompetence; with such trouble, they’d say, it’s clear the man can’t operate in public life. That could hurt, if it last long enough.

Excellent news:

Trust Britain’s youth to be characteristically ungrateful. The Government goes to all the effort of making a website for 16 to 25- year-olds to express their views on identity cards, and all they get in return is a solid mixture of scorn, sneering and scepticism smattered across their fancy new forums.

In a bid to get the country’s youngsters on board the controversial scheme, the Home Office has launched MyLifeMyId.org, where 16 to 25 year olds “can have their say about identity issues in the UK.”

But anyone browsing the discussions on the site would be hard pushed to find a single positive comment, with contributors branding the controversial scheme as “creepy,” “dirty” and “illegal” and the website itself as an “online propaganda machine”.

There’s little public support for ID Cards - and the government can’t create it. Their plan to introduce the scheme by stealth rather falls to pieces when one of those degments initially targetted refuses to cooperate.

(Hat-tip: Back Towards the Locus)

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.

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…

Quite why am I reading Robespierre? Specifically, his Justification of the Use of Terror. It’s terrifying (hah…):

It has been said that terror is the principle of despotic government. Does your government therefore resemble despotism? Yes, as the sword that gleams in the hands of the heroes of liberty resembles that with which the henchmen of tyranny are armed. Let the despot govern by terror his brutalized subjects; he is right, as a despot. Subdue by terror the enemies of liberty, and you will be right, as founders of the Republic. The government of the revolution is liberty’s despotism against tyranny. Is force made only to protect crime? And is the thunderbolt not destined to strike the heads of the proud?

Emphasis mine. The doublethink inherent here boggles the mind. State-terror is justified should it be directed at enemies of liberty, he cries. That this terror requires a basic negation of liberalism appears beyond him. If some people are legitimate target of oppression, and others are not, then clearly freedom from that oppression cannot be a universal value. If that freedom isn’t a universal value, then we clearly aren’t born equal or free - and so on. Robespierre’s words are those of a tyrant.

They represent an extreme perversion; the enabling state gone bad. He posits that we must rid ourselves of tyrants to be free. True enough. But here he falters, with crashing rhetoric demanding an outright tyranny against tyrants. That requires a universal negation of liberty - and a restoration of tyranny. The enabling state exists to make basic freedoms viable for all. When, in order to create liberty, those basic freedoms are cut off - very literally, in Robespierre’s case - that concept ceases to make sense.

Now, let’s put this arcane rambling into a modern context. Quoth Robespierre:

Society owes protection only to peaceable citizens; the only citizens in the Republic are the republicans. For it, the royalists, the conspirators are only strangers or, rather, enemies. This terrible war waged by liberty against tyranny- is it not indivisible? Are the enemies within not the allies of the enemies without? The assassins who tear our country apart, the intriguers who buy the consciences that hold the people’s mandate; the traitors who sell them; the mercenary pamphleteers hired to dishonour the people’s cause, to kill public virtue, to stir up the fire of civil discord, and to prepare political counterrevolution by moral counterrevolution-are all those men less guilty or less dangerous than the tyrants whom they serve?

Emphasis mine. The same principles abound as before; some are permissible targets for Terror, and so liberty isn’t a universal value. We can kill some of you to make the rest free, and you’d better appreciate it or you’ll be next.

And guess where that logic crops up today? Substitute, “terrorism,” or, “anti-social behaviour,” for, “counterrevolution,” and it becomes clear. The same clear logic of the, “Justification of the Use of Terror,” runs through virtually all modern counter-terrorist thought.

Even the rhetoric matches, give or take the linguistic drift of 214 years and translation. Take that last question - on whether the servants of tyrants are as guilty as those tyrants. Doesn’t that sound just like Bush’s axiom that, “if you feed a terrorist, or fund a terrorist, you are a terrorist?” It’s exactly the same principle; if you’ve any connection with terrorism/counter-revolution, you are a terrorist or counter-revolutionary.

Thus, Melanie Phillip’s, “terrorist nation.”  A wall around the West Bank because Hamas exists there, regardless of the blameless children who also happen to exist there. Because, in this system, they’re not blameless.

And it goes beyond that. The enabling state and the values of positive liberty again become perverted. The 42 Days detention farce serves as the perfect example. Labour claims it protects the basic freedoms of life and liberty by introducing the measures; but effectively jeopardises those basic freedoms by allowing the police to grab a citizen off the street and hide them away for 6 weeks without telling them why. In a perverse twist of illogic whereby liberty becomes tyranny for liberty’s sake, liberty loses. And so do we.

It’s absurd to equate Revolutionary Terror with the present situation. But it’s the same thought that underlies both; freedom must be restricted for its own sake. It’s a perverse step which attacks the real purpose of the Enabling State. Certain intervention can make greater liberty available to all - but not when that liberty is undermined at a basic level. Modern politicians would do well to learn that, or face the consequences of their own petty tyranny.

Brown appears not to understand the concept of civil liberties. Quoth the OED on the term:

civil liberty n freedom of action and speech subject to laws established for the good of community

Legal bods could make the definition more nuanced - but that’s almost good enough. Civil liberties are what Berlin termed negative freedoms; ones which exist and cut down upon, not those created by the state.

Which is why Brown today insisted that:

Gordon Brown has defended the use of CCTV, ID cards and the DNA database - saying they protect civil liberties.

And, moving on to the speech:

“New technology is giving us modern means by which we can discharge these duties, but just as we need to employ these modern means to protect people from new threats, we must at the same time do more to guarantee our liberties,” he said.

“Facing these modern challenges, it is our duty to write a new chapter in our country’s story - one in which we both protect and promote our security and our liberty, two equally proud traditions.”

And so on. Notice what Brown’s missed, though: the fact that he wants to create liberty through state intervention. That doesn’t represent the negative freedom characterised by a lack of restraint typically associated with “civil liberties.”

The state can do a great deal to promote and protect liberties. Intervention isn’t in itself evil at all; the enabling state’s list of achievements is huge. But when the state itself becomes the danger to liberty - as it does with proposals to allow it to lock people up for 6 weeks without charge - then it can’t guard against oppression. Brown would do well to realise that…

Yesterday, I wrote that Labour would duck the issue of 42 Days, either by not standing in the Haltemprice and Howden by-election, or running on a full slate if they did.

Kelvin MacKenzie might stop that. In preparing to stand if Labour don’t, he’s forced a choice on them. They might not stand - in which case he will. That’ll humiliate them by demonstrating their cowardice, and it’ll force an argument on 42 Days anyway. MacKenzie says he’d stand solely on 42 Days and authoritarian platform - so there will be a debate, and Labour won’t be able to stop it.

The alternative is that Labour stand - and get forced into an argument on 42 Days, and get hammered. So, that’s the choice of humiliation or even more humiliation for Labour. Or, as it’s otherwise known: not a real choice at all.

Indeed, so potentially damaging is this to Labour’s preferred strategy of hiding in the Commons toilet and lobbing shit (”irresponsible,” etc) at Davis that it’s hard to see why MacKenzie’s doing this. Murdoch and his minion MacKenzie are well known for their shared penchant for an authoritarian approach to everything. And yet their plan could well lead to humiliation for the government.

Perhaps MacKenzie wants to force Labour to stand a candidate and have an argument he thinks should happen. Perhaps he thinks he can make that argument better than Labour himself, and can win. He’d be wrong if that were the case. All his threat to stand has done is strengthen the opposition. He and Murdoch, like much of the media, are apparently at odds with much of the public over Davis resignation: just read some of the comments even appearing on the Sun’s website.

And MacKenzie’s candidature might forge together a coalition for Davis that Labour wouldn’t. Most lefties and liberals loathe both Davis and MacKenzie in general. But when one agrees with you for once, and the other doesn’t, then the choice is clear - support the candidate running on 42 Days, and make it clear the race is about 42 Days and nothing else. He’s hated more, and has positioned himself on the opposite side of the barricades. So you shout at him, regardless of who else joins you. Observe this, for example:

Yes, yes, Davis is a distinctly unreliable “libertarian” with some nasty socially conservative stances, but who can resist the idea of kicking Rupert Murdoch in the nuts? For myself, I’m glad I don’t live close enough to face this particular dilemma. MacKenzie’s decision is partly conditional on Labour not standing, it seems, but my feeling is that momentum - and strong-arming from his boss - will carry him into standing whether Labour field a candidate or not (and, increasingly as the hours tick by, it looks like not). Here’s his positive manifesto for a bright future:

MacKenzie may just have added a few LibDems, Greens (?), independents and maybe even discontented Labour activists to the campaign buses.

So - the public appear touched by Davis’ apparent statement of princple, and there may even be a unified campaign for him. Regardless of the propaganda Murdoch churns out for MacKenzie, he’ll find it hard to win.

But on the off chance he does, will the last person to leave Haltemprice and Howden please turn out the lights?

There is also the matter of Nick Clegg’s reaction. Ali suggested that this was simply another example of his inadequacy, another botched response to bad circumstance. However I consider Davis not to be the only one who comes out favourably from a comparison with Jacqui Smith, consider this:

David Cameron must come clean on what has really happened and why David Davis has really resigned.

where she seemingly fails to even acknowledge the possibility of acting out of principle to this:

I think it is right from time to time to signal as a party leader that we are capable of setting aside the pursuit of narrow party-political advantage in the name of that wider principle.

where Clegg realises that this is what has occurred and follows suit. I was expecting the standard opportunism from the Liberal Democrats over this matter, as they delight in by-elections, but instead I witness a non-partisan response that will let the debate Davis requested be carried out with total clarity. The Liberal Democrats were unlikely to win anyway and the minor chance of acquiring another MP {much as they deserve one, having been entirely unfairly disadvantaged by First Past The Post} would not have outweighed the damage done to the public interest by the distraction of the Liberal Democrat candidate.