Screening probationary subjects -WTH?

I've no problem with the principle of asking citizens to be well along the way to understanding at least one of the official languages of a country they'd like to be a citizen of (I'd expect the same if I was migrating). I have no problem with them broadly agreeing to work within the boundaries of law and ethos (if it could be defined). However, I am worried by this proposal reported here: War protest migrants may face passport penalties And this is what I'm taking exception to: "New migrants who demonstrate an 'active disregard for UK values', possibly including protesting at homecoming parades of troops from Afghanistan, could find their applications for a British passport blocked under new citizenship proposals published today." 'Active disregard' maybe; though disregard is not really what is meant, I suspect: 'disrespect' or 'contempt' might be the thing. However, it's really the example of what might be regarded as an instance of this. I think that a born subject (remember, actually, we aren't really citizens folks, we're subjects of her Britannic majesty and her heirs according to law) could protest at a parade without being even jailed provided the protest was not violent or likely to cause a breach of the peace. I don't think we should be screening people out for opinions which would be considered within the bounds of free speech (that is not criminal conspiracy or hate speech). The irony would be that we are asking them to have respect for diversity and expression of diversity whilst stifling in them legitimate diversity and opinion.
Now to be fair, Chris Huhne does say, "there should be no question of barring people because they criticise government policy. Democratic values must come first", but the example given is worrying. First they come for probationary citizens, then they come for you and me. Who gets to decide what is 'active disregard'; it sounds like one of those elastic concepts which could end up applying to anyone who sees things differently. Of course, it wouldn't start that way, but history does seem to teach it never does; it always starts 'reasonably'.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. (And I want to know what the MoD have done with the photo of me on a protest ...)

Police powers for 2012 Olympics

What is intriguing is that we are only reading about these 2006 laws now ... Anyhow, the bit that struck me from this report is this:

"The police should take a deep breath and read the excellent report from the chief inspector of constabulary on the tolerance of protest. We should aim to show the Chinese that you can run a successful Olympics without cracking down on protesters and free speech"

Police powers for 2012 Olympics alarm critics | UK news | The Guardian: Again it seems that this government just doesn't 'get' civil liberties: the mantra that the powers would not be misused and are only be used against real baddies is remarkably naive, and in the light of recent policing issues around legitimate and largely peaceful protesters, is clearly so. (And maybe this is why we are hearing about this set of legal instruments now). I recently read a USAmerican slagging off the UK because of our surveillance and potentially brutal laws in respect of civil liberties, and for the first time in a decade felt that actually the USA might have the better of us in this respect...

Religion and freedom

Next time you come across one of the headbanger-atheists (as opposed to the more nuanced and reasonable ones) claiming that religion never does any good, re-read this article which just reports on how religious sensibilities have in Burma and once in East Germany been in the lead against atheist tyranny. That's not to claim religion is universally benign: my doctrine of God, human nature etc leads me to expect the subversion of things created good is a perpetual (in this age) danger. However, we should be prepared to hear evidence on both sides of the claim.

I like the article because it also makes connections with other areas of debate such as the uses of new technologies in assisting popular resistance. And this:

"the thing that should come to us as we allow the sequestration of our rights to assemble in Parliament Square, to communicate without being monitored and to move about without being watched is that once these things disappear into the vaults of the state, we face a long, perilous fight to reclaim them."

Hmmm, that's exactly my fear.
Guardian Unlimited | Comment is free | The faith of the oppressed can topple the worst tyrants:

Blow to Brown plan to extend detention beyond 28 days | Terror threat to Britain | Guardian Unlimited

A parliamentary committee seems to evidence that there is still some sense about civil liberties being talked in some of the corridors of power. "Andrew Dismore, the committee's Labour chairman, demanded: 'Where is the supporting evidence to extend the detention period? As far as we've heard there has not yet been a case where 28 days was inadequate.'"
Blow to Brown plan to extend detention beyond 28 days | Terror threat to Britain | Guardian Unlimited:

A sense of proportion

I've blogged a lot over the last couple of years about the way that the reaction to terrorism by the UK and the USA plays into the hands of the terrorists by restricting our freedom and moving us towards a police state (where a hard-line salafi set-up will start to look moderate). Admittedly we aren't there yet, but the measures for NIR could fundamentally change things, as well as the current proposals for, effectively, internment. And along with worrying things like being fined for wearing a loud tee-shirt ("the police have already handed out £80 fixed-penalty notices for "crimes" as ludicrous as wearing T shirts bearing the words "Bollocks to Blair"." See here.). So it was interesting to read this in Wired News:

New York's Mayor Michael Bloomberg, ... said: "There are lots of threats to you in the world. There's the threat of a heart attack for genetic reasons. You can't sit there and worry about everything. Get a life.... You have a much greater danger of being hit by lightning than being struck by a terrorist."

But then, in a society where large numbers of people apparently believe that they have some kind of real hope of winning the lottery, I guess risk-based decision making is not likely to play out too well. The real role of politicians should be to be proportionate, and despite Gordon Brown's words, I suspect that we still aren't seeing that.
Bruce Schneier goes on to say (this is the USA, remember);

I don't think these nut jobs, with their movie-plot threats, even deserve the moniker "terrorist." But in this country, while you have to be competent to pull off a terrorist attack, you don't have to be competent to cause terror. All you need to do is start plotting an attack and -- regardless of whether or not you have a viable plan, weapons or even the faintest clue -- the media will aid you in terrorizing the entire population.

Portrait of the Modern Terrorist as an Idiot It's useful to read this article too where we are reminded of the real worry:

New Labour has not turned Britain into a police state; but it has made it easier for a future government to do so,

. Watch the film V for Vendetta for a comic-book view of it.

Technorati Tags: Islamist, terrorism, UK, policy, civil_liberties