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.

A strange situation at Pickled Politics tonight; take a look at the comments thread here. The poster raised the well documented absurdity of the policing at the Kingsnorth Climate Camp. And found himself leapt upon by commenters as a hysterical leftie thoroughly disconnected from reality.

The following comment is typical:

The state are not imposing anything on anyone here. Just because you are forcibly removed from an area does not make you any more right, nor does it automatically entitle you to call yourself a victim. Why don’t these people, go home, get ‘actually’ politically active and try to come up with solutions instead of trying to manufacture publicity through stunts?

Pardon? The state very much has imposed itself here. Citizens have a democratic right to protest; one supposedly guaranteed in law by the Human Rights Act. They may gather on any piece of public land to voice their concerns over any matter. The state should exist to protect those very freedoms. If the state - or its agents, the police - attempts to restrict them, it commits an assault on liberty and fails in its role.

The protestors at Climate Camp were clearly peaceful. They came there to hold workshops on environmental life and climate change, not viciously beat up policemen. Some didn’t attempt to hide their intention of shutting down the power-station, no; but that, at most justified a police cordon around the power station to protect what’s legally private property. (That it spews out noxious gas and thus directly affects those around it, very much bringing the matter into the public interest, remains to be addressed…). The protestors within the Climate Camp should have been free from harrassment.

So when the police spend an estimated £3 million to bus in officers from far-flung corners of the country to set-up a cordon around the camp before routinely entering it, ransacking private possessions and cart-off protestors on any pretext, they do impose themselves. The protestors have a right to make themselves heard, and when a force supposed to protect that right mercilessly shits on it, they are victims.

More bizarre were comments along these lines:

I showed an American friend this video, she laughed, she said they were so brutal, her shoe nearly fell off!

Come on. There actions are probably over the top. But brutal? Have you heard the quip about heaven, where the Police are British, the chefs are French etc?

In France, the CRS would have literally beat the shit out of them. In fact, I cannot think of another country where the all police wouldn’t have drawn their batons straight away.

Wait - so because our instances of authoritarian policing are less brutal than those abroad, they become okay? Police brutality against peaceful protestors remains police brutality; just because the French riot police are downright sadistic doesn’t stop an assault on democratic freedoms across the channel from being just that.

It isn’t hysteria to rage at length over this. Protest is an essential tool to remind the powerful you exist; the state, which exists to protect and extend the freedom of all citizens, cannot be allowed to choose when or how it’s acceptable to exercise that freedom. Unless the exercise of liberty infringes on that of another, it’s not its job, and shouldn’t be - unless we enjoy repression.

Brown is clearly at severe risk and when even some of the unions are baying for blood (or at least a Major style “Put up or shut up” confrontation). This is hardly surprising, but what has taken me aback is the pathos extracted from his weary, bloated face.

It is essential that we remind ourselves that this is the man who demanded the state be able to imprison the innocent for six weeks, who allied himself and bribed far-right foul bigots to ensure that the act was past, who demanded cannabis be declassified despite this directly disregarding the conclusions of a panel of experts reporting on the issue, who taxed the poor to give minuscule breaks to the moderately affluent, who now plans benefits reforms reminiscent of prison workforces and who has performed a plethora of other idiotic moves in his short reign.

Brown’s beleaguered state is richly deserved. His “Phantom Election” is much touted as his grandest folly but had the economy which he had been charged with for over a decade as Chancellor been kept in a better state the likelihood of the crash being as severe as the one we have actually experienced is small. Without the economic downturn Brown would be in a far better, perhaps even unassailable, position. Without his constant stream of policy that irks his natural base he would have held far stronger against the Tories than he has.

Brown has served as his own gravedigger.

But as for the alternatives? Cameron speaks sense in places but is about as worthy of trust with power as a ferret with a rabbit den. So far as can be determined none save the Blairites (Clarke & Co) are willing to step into the actual position of Prime Minister (and given the conditions surrounding that chalice can they be blamed?) At least one other writer for this blog agrees with me over backing Miliband to the hilt, but he has proven (understandably) wary of the prospect. It would take a politician of nothing short of Messianic proportions to redeem the Labour Party now.

But there can be only so much waiting: at the present rate of erosion it seems likely that there will be precious little Labour Party left to inherit for whoever takes over after Brown. If it were to be done then it would be better that it were done quickly. Each day which the present order remains in place appears to be another step by the Labour Party towards oblivion.

Quoth Iris Robinson of the DUP in a speech to the House:

“There can be no viler act, apart from homosexuality and sodomy, than sexually abusing innocent children.”

She clarified her views in the media with:

“I cannot think of anything more sickening than a child being abused. It is comparable to the act of homosexuality. I think they are all comparable.”

And the Labour leadership would rather do business with her party than its own backbenchers. A depressing place for government to be - especially one which might look for coalition partners in the future.

(Hat-tip: Splintered Sunrise)

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)

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?

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.

I hate to fearmonger, but:

Could Europe be drafting a new law to disconnect suspected filesharers from the internet? MEPs have already signalled their condemnation of this approach. But last-minute amendments to telecommunications legislation could bring the so-called “3 strikes” approach in by the backdoor. If you want your MEP to stick to their guns on 3 strikes, write to them today to voice your concerns.

The legislation would oblige ISPs to disconnect (suspected) filesharers from the internet after two warnings. It wouldn’t matter who’d done the sharing; it wouldn’t matter if it was someone else in the house; it wouldn’t matter if your machine had been assaulted by malware and used without your knowledge. It wouldn’t even matter if filesharing hadn’t taken place - note suspected filesharers.

And that wouldn’t be all, would it? A vague section of the legislation might give rightsholders the right (hah…) to demand personal information about subscribers from ISPs without reference to a court. Other amendments give rightsholders similar powers to leech information retained to fight terrorism.

Now, let’s summarise. A sweeping assault on all filesharing; complete disregard for users’ privacy; an arbitrary system whereby users’ can be struck off as suspects; and a blatant ignorance of what the public actually wants, as evidenced by their continued filesharing. And all this contained in a document as long and obscurantist as most EU legislation, tucked away as a few amendments few were likely to read. In short; a vile piece of legislation which threatens to tip me into outright euroscepticism, and whose sponsors deserve to be torn apart on the vicious rocks of electoral catastrophe.

Oh, and did I mention the vote was tomorrow? Get writing.

(Hat-tips: Jennie at Yorksher Gob, whence the story came to my attention; and panGloss for a highly informative post on the matter)

It’s a few days old - but if you haven’t seen Johann Hari’s piece on Section 28, it’s well worth the read. It must be some of his best writing in a while:

Let’s end with the story of one boy – one of many – who paid the price for Section 28’s stalling. Jonathan Reynolds was a 15 year-old from Bridgend, South Wales, who came out to some of his closest friends in 2006. They blabbed – and he was bullied and harassed and threatened as a “faggot” and a “poof” until he couldn’t take it any more. His school had no policy in place to protect gay children; any move to develop one had been squashed by the vast legal block of Section 28, and hadn’t recovered in time for him. So one day, after he sat a GCSE exam where he earned a starred A grade, he lay down on the train tracks near his home. He texted his sister Sam: “Tell everyone that this is for anybody who eva said anything bad about me, see I do have feelings too. Blame the people who were horrible and injust 2 me. This is because of them, I am human just like them. None of you blame yourself, mum, dad, Sam and the rest of the family. This is not because of you.” Then a train sliced his body apart.

Jonathan Reynolds’ final text message – his last cry of “I am human” – should serve as the obituary for the late, un-great Section 28.

Ignore the occasionally poor sub-editting, and it’s an excellent summary of just how vile that law was.

It seems like there is a project underway aiming to Bait Bush. He’s here on the 15th and although I have no idea what exactly the plan is I am certain that I want in.