…but this gem from the delightful Donal Blaney deserves a wider audience. By the way, if you don’t regularly read Donal, can I suggest you start? His views genuinely frighten me.

The police ban Babyshambles from Moonfest:

The decision came after police asked an intelligence officer to research Doherty’s band, Babyshambles, who were booked to headline Moonfest festival in Westbury, Wiltshire, next week. They concluded that the band’s tendency to “speed up and then slow down the music” could create a “whirlpool effect” and spark disorder.

A horrific phenomenon also known as “Putting on a good show”. Apparently Superintendent Paul Williams would prefer “Cliff Richard or Bucks Fizz” to play.

Doherty is reportedly “absolutely devastated and furious”, which suggests that this was one of the shows which he actually intended to turn up to. A day was shortened, a festival pretty much ruined (the amount of Babyshambles fans who came there just for Pete was doubtless substantial) and the puritans win in their efforts to stamp out some fun once more.

It seems that the Vatican is more responsive and timely than I had anticipated. In response to my question in this article asking when the Church would involve itself the answer can only now be “Pretty damn quickly.”

Now I doubt the editor of their affiliate accelerated the Pope, or perhaps worked at his instruction, but it is pleasing that the Italian government has found an enemy in the Church. The Vatican wields considerably more clout when dealing with the Italian right than our own Anglican bishops could ever hope to hold over the Labour party.

The news that Famiglia Cristiana’s editor is to be sued by a leader of the far-right coalition who hold power over Italy suggests that they feel especially vulnerable. We must hope that this measure is doomed to the failure which is richly deserves, but regardless it demonstrates that the instinctive authoritarian instinct to close down debate is in evidence here.

The article contains a worrying aside, however:

So far, church leaders have been far more outspoken in their criticism of the government’s policies than Italy’s main, centre-left opposition party.

Which simply pleads for the question: if the Italian left can’t even muster the guts to call finger-printing innocent children for being gypsies “Indecent” then what the hell are they for?

Signs that the Italian government has not embraced the ideology it is not most easily associated with. Or at least that it does not take kindly to criticism levelled at it from one of the few outlets not controlled by Berlusconi’s ownership (criticism of Berlusconi by those newspapers he does own is of course as common as the Murdoch press scrutinising BSkyB’s tax conduct). In this case a feature upon the unnerving right-swing was published in a newspaper with strong Papal ties. Although this is clearly not representative of the Vatican (instead representing the author and editor’s views) the attacks seem damning and authoritarians always struggle to evade being held to account for their excesses when the press is free. Which is why their immediate impulse is to stamp down or, in Berlusconi’s case, buy out.

This does raise an interesting issue, however: if the Vatican has not spoken out then was has it not and when does it intend to? As foul an organisation as it in many ways is the strength of the Church in Italy renders all true totalitarianism an impossibility, unless there rises to power a leader both bold and mad enough to march on the Vatican. The Church holds a substantial powerbase and if willing to speak out against the government’s draconianism and outright racism could have a substantial impact. Any making pretence that this would somehow be out of line for a religious organisation has clearly failed to grasp the innately political nature of the Church’s structure, intent and behaviour. This is the Church that attempted to prevent distribution of condoms at a Valentine’s Day festival in Brazil, not one which has any qualms about immersing itself in matters of public policy.

On a broader note, we can but hope that the criticism against the government results in a suitable backlash. Perhaps it could even trigger the form of examination and condemnation of Italy’s fascist past which it largely failed to embrace after the downfall of Mussolini. Douglas’ references to pro-fascist Italians are telling: “Mussolini had his positive side. The streets were safe in his day” is by no means a rare sentiment in Italy. Those who were not from the “weak” groups targeted enjoyed the fruits of the social democratic policies Mussolini failed to abandon while forging corporatism after the abandonment of his former comrades on the left. Consequentially the impression is positive, the only partially correct cliche that “Mussolini made the trains run on time” having substantial weight in a nation with as precarious infrastructure and unreliable services. Italians appear to struggle with the notion of the objective historian, seeing the origins and ideology of the writer as something which must be borne foremost in mind while reading, so perhaps the vileness of the past being alluded to in the present will cause many to recall the horrors and others who have never experienced the original power seizure of the fascists to relish the sensation first hand. This is merely my optimism talking, however. For the time being Italy is set for a grim few years. Whether Berlusconi shall have entrenched himself by the end of this time, empowered the left or both remains to be seen.

Italy isn’t a pleasant place at present; Berlusconi recently put 3000 troops on the streets of Rome. This, he claims, is part of an attempt to crush an alleged wave of crime by Roma gypsies.

But who really believes that from a government that placed gypsies on an ethnic register? The move smacks of a barely closeted racism; it assumes a moral panic sparked by the single murder in November is fully justified, and that gypsies are solely to blame for all Italian crime. Pandering, in short, to prejudice.

And that prejudice certainly exists:

On the streets of northern Rome such reservations are hard to find. “All our problems come from foreigners getting drunk, smashing windows and stealing,” said Anna Maria Mercure, who at 80 is old enough to remember an earlier era of Italian discipline. “Mussolini had his positive side. The streets were safe in his day.”

Fascism is fine so long as they don’t arrest me, she means. I direct readers to a rather famous poem, the sentiment of which is entirely sound.

Others want their xenophobic authoritarianism laid out in simple steps, though:

“I would kill them all,” said Virginia Cristell, a mother in her 40s. “Send them to the country – or send them somewhere. They are dirty and there are lots of problems with burglary and thieving. They make toxic smoke.”

Deport them, and then exterminate them - sound familiar to anyone?

The gypsies certainly feel victimised:

That, however, is not the view of Goffredo Bezzecchi, 69, an Italian gipsy who came close to death after Italian Fascists tried to send his family to the death camps. They escaped before they could be deported. Mr Bezzecchi, who was fingerprinted at his home near Milan last month, feels history is at risk of repeating itself. “These things were done in the Fascist days when gipsies were killed or sent to concentration camps,” he said. “The politicians should remember that we are human, not garbage.”

To summarise; ethnic profiling, ethnically targetted policing enacted by the army, and plans to move people around the country on the grounds they belong to an ethnic group. Berlusconi’s government has, in effect, denied that the Roma can be defined by anything but their ethnicity, and so their individual humanity. Very 1930s.

Today, Tory MEPs confirmed their party’s civil libertarian credentials - by voting not to condemn the finger-printing of Roma children in Italy. All but one of the party’s MEPs has voted against a resolution condemning ethnic profiling by Berlusconi’s government. One said:

“Fingerprinting is the only way to ensure the children are sent to school” - Charles Tannock MEP

So, to summarise - the Conservative MEPs have refused to condemn a racist and authoritarian measure which effectively dscriminates against a vulnerable minority. That hardly fits in with their current narrative of the party of civil liberties, valiantly struggling against a tide of CCTV cameras and police forms.

Unless, of course, Cameron sends an internal memo condemning the MEPs as fascist fellow-travellers. Which seems unlikely. Perhaps David Davis should resign his membership in the hope of raising public attention…

(Hat-tip: Question That)

Any who were shocked by the recent lurch of Italy back into the embrace of a grim coalition of those who consider themselves neo-fascists and those who consider themselves “The New Falange” would do well to read this harrowing piece by Nick Davies.

The rot set in a long time ago.

Dave Hill carries a selection of key questions for Wednesday’s MQT. Notice in particular John Biggs’ continued attempts to set himself up as a man of cutting wit, with all the elegance of a 14 year old - and the rather more substantial scrutiny from the Green AMs.

But what of Barnbrook? Bananaman doesn’t at all feature in Dave’s post. Perhaps because his oral question is less than cutting:

In light of the metropolitan polices recent figures for knife crime can the Mayor recognise that 42% of knife crime is carried out by the African Caribbean community who only make up 9% of the population and what measures will the Mayor take to address this.

So - a scarcely veiled piece of racism. Barnbrook poses a question ostensibly about a universal issue, and then throws in selectively abused statistics designed to imply it’s all the blacks’ fault. It doesn’t quite say that anyone with dark skin is a blade-wielding thug, but it means it.

And are the written questions any better?

In light of the recent departure of Deputy Mayor Ray Lewis, will the Mayor now start to appoint advisors based on merit and real experience rather than what I personally consider and understand him to be doing, appointing anyone just to make up his racial quotas?

Let’s take that as a definite no then. It’s outright racism now - and it confirms common thoughts on BNP strategy. They keep the public image - and the oral questions - relatively clean. Dogwhistle politics and veiled racism is in; overt attacks on ethnic minorities aren’t. Those get saved for the written questions that fewer people see - like this.

They get stranger, though:

Can the Mayor confirm how he knows Ray Lewis and who recommended his appointment?

What’s he implying? The answer is obvious - the Tories have wanted Lewis for a while, and that’s how he ended up in City Hall. But the implication of wrongdoing inherent in the question strikes me as peculiar. Does Barnbrook want an admission that the two met in a secret multiculturalist underground sect clubbed together to pass Britain into an era of leftist dominion?

In light of the Mayors support for the ban on British National Party members joining the police force, can the Mayor explain the reasons for his opinion?

Perhaps because they’re fascists, who’ve a record of using the police to smash democracy. Oh, and learn to use the apostrophe, Richard.

Can the Mayor confirm what measures he will take to ensure that British culture is preserved and takes priority in London?

Can Richard Barnbrook confirm what measures he will take to inform us all precisely what he means by “British culture” in such a culturally diverse City as London?

And, last of all, the bugbear:

Can the Mayor confirm how much funding he will be allocating to next years St Georges Day celebrations in London?

He wants a new costume, you see.

So - a series of execrably pointless questions centred on a vile racist paranoia. Par for the course for neo-fascists, then?

Excuse me while I gibber in bafflement for a moment. A homophobe doesn’t want to perform civil partnerships for gay couples on religious grounds - and an employment tribunal says that’s okay. Why? The whole point of civil partnerships is that they’re secular; religion doesn’t come into it.

But, apparently, it does now. The tribunal sets a dangerous precedent with their decision. It’s okay for the religious to discriminate against gays on the grounds of their sexuality, it says - even in secular situations. And it’s not okay to ensure secular functions are carried out if the religious functionary due to carry them out isn’t comfortable. Note that sexuality isn’t often considered a conscious choice. Religion very definitely is.

And, guess what? That’s how the fundies read it too. Quoth Lillian Ladele, the bigot concerned:

“I am delighted at this decision.

“It is a victory for religious liberty, not just for myself but for others in a similar position to mine.

“Gay rights should not be used as an excuse to bully and harass people over their religious beliefs.”

And, of course, selective, homophobic readings of an ancient text should be used as an excuse to bully and harrass people over their sexuality. Ladele claims to have won a victory for liberty; she hasn’t. She’s set a precedent where public servants - who exist to serve the whole public equally, on the basis of need - may discriminate against that public on the grounds of their own irrational prejudices. A victory, in short, for discrimination.

Hadn’t we got past all this?

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.