Longrider

I notice that the NO2ID pledge is down to 50 short of its target of 10,000 signatories. Given that the planned completion date was October 2005, that’s not bad. A small sample, maybe, but it is an indication that all is not well with the government’s assertion that their ID Cards bill has popular support.

Incidentally, I’ve yet to meet anyone who really does support the idea. There are a few on the net who just spout the government line - but otherwise, they seem to be a rare breed.
—–

Councillor Mohammed Iqbal represents the ward where the London bombers lived. Like many in the community he is stunned by the attacks. Also, like many in the Islamic communities in Britain, he is asking why.

I feel for Mr Iqbal when he says:

"We as a Muslim community need to take a role in dealing with this. And that means the community should come forward and do its part, for the sake of everyone."

He is right. I wish him well. He has a difficult path to tread, as does Mr Tanweer whose nephew Shehzad was one of the bombers. Today Tony Blair has urged them to "uproot the ideology of evil".

"Tony Blair yesterday launched a campaign to help mainstream British Muslims confront the "perverted and poisonous" doctrines of Islamic extremism in their midst, if necessary by excluding or deporting the religious extremists who foment it."

I wonder where…

"This is perhaps the most warped argument of them all. In the aftermath of 7/7 many expensive and sometimes intrusive security measures will be put in place, in an attempt to prevent another attack. Does that mean the terrorists have won? Quite the contrary, it only means we’re fighting back. Or does anyone suggest we do nothing at all?"

No one has said that the authorities should do nothing - merely that resources should be applied where they will best work. ID cards are not an example of that.

I also find it curious when people refer to the ID cards issued during WWII as some sort of justification. Such people really are revising history to suit themselves. Firstly, this country is not at war. George Bush’s "war on terror" is a rhetorical term, it does not mean that we are at war with another country. Therefore draconian measures are inappropriate. Also, comparing the documents issued 60 odd years ago with the current proposals is not comparing like with like. A card document with little more than name and address is not the same as a national identity register with 50 personal details and an audit trail. And, no one has ever demonstrated that the wartime ID cards were effective in any way - people had them; so what? It didn’t prove anything. It reminds me of the old motorcycle daytime headlight claim - it looks safe, so it must be safe. This is a foolish assumption. The other point that the revisionists choose to forget is why we stopped having ID cards in 1952. In 1951 acting Lord Chief Justice Lord Goddard made the following judgement:

"it is obvious that the police now, as a matter of routine, demand the production of national registration indemnity cards whenever they stop or interrogate a motorist for whatever cause. Of course, if they are looking for a stolen car or have reason to believe that a particular motorist is engaged in committing a crime, that is one thing, but to demand a national registration identity card from all and sundry, for instance, from a lady who may leave her car outside a shop longer than she should, or some trivial matter of that sort, is wholly unreasonable. This Act was passed for security purposes, and not for the purposes for which, apparently, it is now sought to be used. To use Acts of Parliament, passed for particular purposes during war, in times when the war is past, except that technically a state of war exists, tends to turn law-abiding subjects into lawbreakers, which is a most undesirable state of affairs. Further, in this country we have always prided ourselves on the good feeling that exists between the police and the public and such action tends to make the people resentful of the acts of the police and inclines them to obstruct the police instead of to assist them …

They ought not to use a Security Act, which was passed for a particular purpose, as they have done in this case. For these reasons, although the court dismisses the appeal, it gives no costs against the appellant."

That statement is as valid today as when it was first uttered.

Nearly forgot…

Jour De Bastille Heureux.

In the Guardian today, Roger Mosey, head of BBC Television News defends the corporation’s coverage of last week’s bombings. Well, he would, wouldn’t he?

Facetiousness aside, he makes some interesting points:

“First, our scheduling and the question of whether there was too much about the London bombings on terrestrial television. News 24 was carrying rolling coverage from the start of the incidents, and we first did a news report on BBC1 just before 10am. At that stage all broadcasters were reporting that the cause of the tube disruption was believed to be a power surge - but as soon as we’d confirmed the reports of the bus explosion in Tavistock Square we moved News 24 onto BBC1 and our coverage continued until 7pm. We have two sources for believing this was right. Audiences were more than double the normal level; but we’ve also asked a representative cross-section of viewers whether they thought the coverage was proportionate and by a large majority they thought it was.”

Okay, this was a judgement call and that was the judgement made on the day. It is easy with hindsight to criticize, however, my belief is that it was overdone. Terrorist attacks of this nature feed on the subsequent publicity - ongoing rolling news featuring images of a bombed bus played straight into their hands. Also, much of what was being said was either repeating what little was known or speculation - even though they state that they tried to avoid this.

“However, we will not report mere rumour and nor will we run casualty figures, as the most obvious example, without being able to verify them.”

Despite their best intentions, they did stray into the muddy area of speculation - about the bombers’ intentions, about how the attacks were carried out and whether this was a suicide bombing or remote controlled detonation. This was not news, it was opinion and guesswork. Yes, I agree, people need to be informed. However we did not need blanket coverage on BBC1 - News 24 would have been sufficient.

I do agree with Mr Mosey when he says:

“From a smattering of radical websites comes the argument that we are being hypocritical in mourning the dead of London when we allegedly gloried in civilian deaths in Iraq.

This utterly misrepresents the BBC’s reporting of Iraq, where we have always sought to portray the whole picture of events in that country.”

I have never noticed any gloating on the part of BBC reporters during coverage of Iraq and the charge is grotesque. Indeed, so to is Fox News:

“A contributor to Fox said after the London bombings that “the BBC almost operates as a foreign registered agent of Hezbollah and some of the other jihadist groups”. On the Fox website today there is an opinion piece, “How Jane Fonda and the BBC put you in danger”.”

Not called Faux News by its critics without reason, this is pure sleaze. Whatever my criticism of the BBC, they at least do not stoop to the sewer depths where Fox News lurks.
—–

Shortly after the blasts in London on Thursday, George Galloway suggested that UK and US foreign policy had made the world a more dangerous place and was responsible (at least in part) for the outrage.

“Silence would be complicity. I am not prepared to be complicit when people in Iraq and London are paying a blood price for Blair’s bizarre special relationship with Bush,”

This time, he is off base. Whatever one’s opinion on the foreign policy relating to Middle Eastern affairs, that this is a cause of what is happening on our home soil is misguided. Even if George Bush broke off all links with the House of Saud, we left the Israel/Palestine situation to sort out itself and if troops were pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan, it would not appease these attackers.

These matters are but a sideshow in something that goes much deeper and has been festering much longer than 20th Century events. Islam and Christendom are incompatible bedfellows. While the two faiths draw from the same origins, neither is tolerant of the other. The conflict can be traced back to the Crusades and the Moorish incursions into Spain. Indeed, much of Spain was part of the Islamic world until 1031. The people who pervert the qur’an into an excuse for Jihad hate what we are, what we stand for and our influence in the world. They despise our religion and our secularism, our consumer society and what they see as a lack of piety. They seek to destroy the infidel - that is, you and I.

Yet, before we sink into thinking that they are poor oppressed underdogs acting out of a sense of desperation, consider this point that Roger Scruton makes in the Times today. He draws comparisons with the perpetrators of terror elsewhere - from the Jacobins in France to the Bolsheviks in Russia, the people who ride on the back of the underdog, yet themselves are part of an educated and rising elite. The resentment against those who have success or position runs as a common thread throughout as a tool for exerting power and control for themselves. The Jihadis are merely tapping into this resentment - and drawing on 1000 years of religious hatred.

Despite words about being tough on terrorism and being tough on the causes of terrorism, the reality is that sometimes, doing so will involve talking to one’s enemy. Negotiation is occasionally the unpalatable reality as it was in Ireland, as it eventually will be in Palestine. However while it may be possible to negotiate with Irish Republicans over the autonomy of Ireland, it is not possible to negotiate with a group whose aim is as nebulous as that of the Jihadis. The only satisfaction that I can see for them would be submission to Sharia law for the west, the shutting down of Hollywood and the subjugation of women. Oh, yes, and I’d have to cut my hair…

Giving up what makes us what we are is not a negotiating chip.

There are occasions when the Samizdatas defy belief.

They may not like George Galloway; and given their right-wing libertarian stance, I wouldn’t expect them to. However, they cling to the unproven allegations against Galloway and use these along with his outspoken (in my opinion misjudged) claims regarding the recent London bombings as an excuse to brand him a traitor.

Traitor: “One who betrays one’s country, a cause, or a trust, especially one who commits treason.”

Given that there is no evidence that George Galloway has committed treason, he is not a traitor. Removing him from parliament as the article’s author suggests, is not appropriate action to take when someone openly disagrees with the majority view. As for the commenter who suggested that he should be tried and shot… well… it just leaves me lost for adequate words. Is that shot after or before he is found guilty, or even if he isn’t?

This is a free speech issue and nothing else. If they have evidence of Galloway’s "corruption" they should put up - or shut up. If they disagree with what he has to say, they are free to rebut it. After all, there are plenty who would disagree with what they have to say…

On this occasion, I am one of them.

It had to happen of course. In the wake of an outrage, Mr Angry puts pen to paper (or finger to keyboard) and floods the press with the benefit of his unedited thoughts on the matter. That they are inherently stupid is also entirely predictable. Three letters in the Times today serve to illustrate the point rather well. The first, from Mr Daljit Sehbai, goes on to say:

“I love civil liberties as much as do those who oppose the introduction of identity cards (letters, July 8, etc) or tough measures against terrorists. But the right to life is of paramount importance.

Let the leaders of all political parties and our eminent judges worry more about protecting the lives of our citizens and their right to live, travel and work in safety.”

Really? So the only life worth living is one where our basic liberties are curtailed, where we are under constant surveillance by an overweening nanny state? And, it would seem, the politicians and judiciary are suitable people to be trusted with our safety and wellbeing. My, oh my, well I was missing a trick there.

The second correspondent, Dr Charles Tannock, MEP for London Region, does at least make a cohesive point with this:

“Peter Riddell (Political Briefing, July repeats the assertion that ID cards did not prevent the Madrid bombings and by implication suggests the London bombings will not help the Government’s case.

That may be, but what has not been reported is that the Spanish police were able to round up the terrorist suspects because an unexploded bomb was found with the detonating mobile phone.”

Except that, nothing in the ID cards bill requires the presentation of a card to buy a mobile phone. If that happens, then it will be function creep. This is something that worries us as campaigners against the scheme. Do I really want to live in a society where buying a pay-as-you-go phone requires the presentation of an ID card? I don’t think so. The chance that someone will take advantage of our liberties is something that we risk when we live in a liberal common law democracy. When Dr Tannock goes on to point out that this will therefore stop other attacks, he sinks into knee-jerk reactionary nonsense. The terrorism argument for ID cards was the first to be thoroughly debunked and even the Home Secretary accepted that ID cards would not have prevented last Thursday’s atrocity. Dr Tannock also seems to be unaware of his own party’s policy on the matter and indeed the reason for it (apart from opportunism)…

The third letter from a Mr Michael Joyce is a joy to read if you appreciate the sheer lunacy of the colonel Blimp school of idiocy

“A national database for all British citizens of their DNA sequence would cost less and be far more effective in combating crime generally and assisting in the pursuit and conviction of terrorists.”

Priceless. Something these three correspondents appear to have forgotten is that it is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt…

Rational people have long realised that Identity Cards do not stop terrorists. We knew this last Wednesday. Nothing changed that on Thursday and it is still true in the aftermath as the dust settles and the police search for the perpetrators. Like the three correspondents to the Times, I am outraged by what happened. Unlike them, I remain implacably opposed to any curtailment of our civil liberties because that would be handing terrorists an undeserved victory.

I am inclined to agree with John Simpson’s approach

“Bernard Levin, advised his readers to respond to the bombs as a refined hostess might respond to a dinner-guest who belched loudly at the table: just ignore it, he said.

At the time it seemed to me effete and mannered. Now I see it was exactly the right advice.”

Perhaps, messers Sehbai, Tannock and Joyce would like to take note.

This morning the anti terrorist squad (or whatever it is they are calling themselves these days) are carrying out a series of raids. This is breaking news and was reported on BBC Breakfast. During the five minutes or so when we learned nothing much other than the raids were “somewhere in west Yorkshire” the field reporter was asked if he had more detail. He replied that the press had not been given more detail because the police did not want the media crawling all over them while they conducted the raids. Really? Now there’s a surprise…
—–

I’ve put the latest kitten pictures up at felix-domesticus for those of you who are interested.
—–