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.

One slither in particular of Douglas’ earlier post stuck out to me:

who Parker calls “shareholders”.

This is the neo-liberal tendency at its most obvious. This ideology’s adherents are seemingly incapable of considering anything to be other than a market. This sort of reductionism is surely not what even Adam Smith would have wanted. The consequence of this nonsense perspective being applied to anything is invariably carnage so I imagine London will suffer immensely, but that’s what I anticipated from the outset so this is hardly news to my ears.

It still smarts that a 1980s throw-back has such a vital role, especially in a City Hall once dominated by the far superior 1960s throwbacks.

Oh yes, and happy towel day.

This is vile. Businesses have decided it’s about time that they introduced their own version of the criminal record. The National Staff Dismissals Register, an online database going live later this month, will contain the details of all employees of signed up companies dismissed for simple allegations of certain offences. There doesn’t need to have been any proof, or criminal conviction - merely allegations.

These details will remain on the database for five years. They will be available to any company signed up to the site. That already means Harrods, Selfridges and Reed Managed Services, amongst others.

Presence on the Register is likely to scupper chances of employment entirely. Who’d employ someone who might be guilty of theft, forgery or fraud, if they even suspected them of it? No-one who valued their money, certainly…

They say it’s not a blacklist.

How?

The system is so open to abuse it’s frightening. People have been falsely accused of offences before.  They’ve been sacked for them. They’d lose their job, but they wouldn’t get a criminal record. It’d be unpleasant, but at least they could move on.

This destroys any chance of that. Once an employee is on the database, rightfully or not, they’re on it - and have less of a chance of getting a job. In a case where an employee is wrongly dismissed, that’s simply unfair. You can imagine it. Some lecherous old fart of an employer, as is known to happen, makes advances at an employee. Wisely cautious of flabby middle aged flesh and rampantly under-sexed bosses, they reject them. The boss gets offended, concocts a vague tale of misplaced paper-clips and laptops, and the employee is fired.

And now that goes on their record as theft. For five years.

So, that’s gross injustice number 1. But what about gross injustice number 2? This database utterly dismisses the notion that people can change. Yes, an employee might commit a crime at an early stage, and rightly be dismissed for it. But why can’t they change? Dismissal might be the very spur to drive them back into obeying the law.

If a greasy speck like Jonathan Aitken could do it…

There are reasons employers aren’t allowed to share details of employees. If a crime’s committed, and there’s enough evidence to collar someone, then they’ll get a criminal record. Future employers can judge them on that. If not, then past employers have no right to tar their future with semi-substantiated accusations so weak that they couldn’t even take them to the police.

If a government collected a database like this, there’d be (rightful) outrage. “Statist tyranny!” would go up the cry. “Evil socialists coming to steal your freedom, evil, evil…”

So why is there no outcry when the private sector does it?

“Good for politics, good for London.”

I’m going to stop myself plunging off of the handle here. It’s a powerful temptation but I’m going to play up the optimism and tone down the woe as much as possible. We’ve lost a fine leader and are going to be a socialist out-post no longer. This is a true pity and it remains to be seen how much of the good can get over-turned. Ken was humble and calm and made me miss him instantly, taking all of the blame personally. I would also, however, blame Paddick who remains entirely inexplicable to me, especially now he revealed his secret second preference party of choice was not Labour, as I had assumed, but instead the Left List. If he’d said it then perhaps they’d have gotten a headline or two and not had to sneak onto the front-page via a few of their signs being held at the NUT strike.

But I’m only bad-mouthing the Trots to make myself feel better. It’s a miserable event, the Tories even sweeping well past the 9 required to 11. I’m still not sure about that, though: coverage has been a total mess and most of the sources we used to follow it {the Guardian and Stop Boris} admitted as much.

On the bright side…

He’s probably the best member of the Conservative Party going.

He’s suggested that getting rid of Brown and replacing him with Miliband would be wise. That is correct.

Ken gets more time with his five children.

Ken might come back, who knows.

Perhaps this first, early dosage of Tory smugness will give me some degree of immunity from a general election win.

The BNP have not made as great an advance as could have occurred, although still expanding their vote. Given that UKIP are no longer really of note and the English Democrats are still a bad joke this
should concern them and encourage us. Barnbrook got a seat, which might mean that the party holds itself together, but I’m sure that Douglas & his Green chums at the GLA could arrange a viewing of HMS Discovery in City Hall in honour of that. Turning woe into lulz is win.

There is bad stuff, of course. The gas guzzlers will go unhindered and unharassed, free to spill their C02 while the housing plans he has in mind are shoddy nonsense. His approach to crime is vague and idiotic and his head seems to have been turned thoroughly by editing the Spectator. A supporter of Bush is going to struggle to represent London properly and I imagine that his comments about Islam could, if repeated, spark a riot or two. He could be a Tory puppet, which would effectively leave the Conservative Party in command of the city. At best he will ruin everything and frighten the voters away come the general, which rather seems to treat London as a city sacrifice.

Who knows, perhaps he’ll do a fine job. We have to hope. That’s all we can do, at the moment.