John Catt found himself on the wrong side of the ANPR system. He regularly attends anti-war demonstrations outside a factory in Brighton, his home town.
It was at one of these protests that Sussex police put a “marker” on his car. That meant he was added to a “hotlist”.
This is a system meant for criminals but John Catt has not been convicted of anything and on a trip to London, the pensioner found himself pulled over by an anti-terror unit.
“I was threatened under the Terrorist Act. I had to answer every question they put to me, and if there were any questions I would refuse to answer, I would be arrested. I thought to myself, what kind of world are we living in?”

Britain is increasingly becoming a nation that categorises people as criminals and enemies of the state based on whether or not they hold a viewpoint that disagrees with that of the government. This is another in the long line of examples of the label ‘terrorist’ being used to undermine the rights of citizens acting in a way completely accordant with the principles on which the country was founded. There’s a systematic campaign under way to silence dissenting voices through intimidation and harassment.

And where there’s Creeping Socialist Nightmare, one name can’t be far behind. Take it, Jacqui Smith:

“It’s something that we will look at further legislation about where necessary,” she said.
“I don’t think we should lose sight of the very considerable benefits that this technology also brings us, brings law enforcement.”

Much as I try, I can’t convince myself that the initial ‘considerable benefits that this technology brings us’, before she amends it to ‘brings law enforcement’ is anything but a tacit admission of her own complicity in trying to institute a state where the government hold the reins of absolute power, free to track whoever they want at will without fear of reprisal or of being held accountable for misuse of the power that they, after all, have signed over to themselves.

Recent research by Huddersfield University found that the public seemed to share that view. The study took place in Leeds as the ANPR system was being introduced. The vast majority supported the cameras if they caught law breakers, with only a few mentioning concerns about police surveillance.

Baa.

If the Coroners and Justice Bill remains unaltered it will make it illegal to own any picture of children participating in sexual activities, or present whilst sexual activity took place.

The Ministry of Justice is here defining ‘picture’ as broadly as possible to include paintings, graphic art and cartoons — down to something as insignificant as doodles on a scrap of paper, if they really feel like it. They are also defining ‘children’ as broadly as possible, to include anything that might be perceived as a child.
The problem of this is that it makes no distinction between The Erotic Adventures of Captain NAMBLA and serious art. Intent doesn’t matter: whether it’s a collection of drawings of child rape designed for pederasts to whack off over or an in-context depiction of child abuse in a comic book about someone who endures child abuse and goes on to cope with the aftermath of the same (for example, The Tale of One Bad Rat). Part of this problem is that maybe we have to argue that as reprehensible as we might find it, and unpopular as the choice might be, then so long as no-one is actually being directly affected by these images the possession of them shouldn’t be criminalised. It’s a ridiculous argument to say that child abuse is being committed by the people making the images in the first place: I can’t remember the last time I read about a comic book creator dressing as a rodent and fighting crime to get into the mindset of making a Batman comic. Clearly, if anyone is fucking kids in order to draw comics about it afterwards, the fault lies with the individual and not with the act of making the comic. If you choose to argue that possessing cartoons of children engaged in sexual acts makes one more likely to commit child abuse or more likely to seek out actual child porn, then you’re stupid and wrong for four reasons: Saw, Saw II, Saw III, and Saw IV. The Saw movies are about people being tortured and killed in a host of different gruesome ways. Possession of the Saw movies does not make a person more likely to torture and kill someone, and if somebody that tortured and killed a person was found to own the Saw movies, any reasonable person would place the blame on the individual’s disposition rather than on the influence of the movies. As Neil Gaiman points out, freedom of speech is sometimes about defending the indefensible. If no other crimes are being committed then it seems incredibly foolish to criminalise something based on the bad feeling it gives us when we think about it. Freedom of speech says we can make movies about accidentally killing someone and being haunted by it or we can make movies about serial killers with no redeeming characteristics who are still the hero of the piece. You just can’t kill someone to make that movie, because that’s the point when speech becomes action, and actions can be criminalised.

The worst part of this whole proposed bill for me is the statement the Ministry of Justice put out to combat criticisms that the bill might be misapplied to target legitimate art:

The clauses in the Bill are to tackle pornographic and obscene images of child sexual abuse which have no place in our society. It is not our intention to criminalise the possession of material that does not fall foul of the Obscene Publications Act or to criminalise the legal entertainment industry, the art industry or pornographic cartoons.

This is a very carefully worded statement that addresses the concerns without ever really taking action on them. It says ‘don’t worry, we promise we won’t misuse the wide definitions we set as our parameters’ without even addressing the idea of making the parameters more specific or setting in place exemptions from the bill. It says ‘it’s not our intention to criminalise other areas, but we’re keeping our options open’.

If you’re still not convinced, here’s the final word:

The Bill currently going through Parliament is closely modelled on a similar piece of Australian legislation which has caused numerous controversies since it became law. Earlier this month an Australian man was convicted of possessing child pornography because he downloaded six images of characters from The Simpsons performing sex acts on each other.

In order to give valid support to this bill, you must describe how anyone in this case beside the convicted man (as wrongful victim) and Fox (as copyright holders) were directly affected. Please show all work and cite sources where applicable.

See, in the name of stopping terrorism, it’s very important that the government require social networking sites to retain all information created by British users so they can monitor it. For, I don’t know, potentially deadly image macros, or something.
This is on top of something that’s already in the works that says the government gets to store all e-mails sent in the UK as well as monitor all phone calls from landlines and mobiles. This database is planned to monitor for chatter that could give advance warning about terrorist attacks, like that day the trains got bombed in London four years ago, or… um… well, that’s pretty much the only major non-IRA attack in recent memory. Appending on this new idea about social networking sites is because the increasing popularity of these sites over the past few years has “left a loophole for terrorists and criminal gangs to exploit.”
Which just goes to prove, really, the government just aren’t taking this threat seriously. Sure, it’s all well and good to monitor social networking sites, blogs, phone calls, e-mails, your financial transactions and your vehicle’s movements, but doesn’t that leave the alarming loophole of everyday conversation? We need above all else to implant some kind of chip in people, something that will track their movements, monitor their body chemistry for poor diet and drug use, and crucially, record every word they say. Doesn’t it terrify you that right now, outside your window, two people are having a conversation and the government have no way of knowing what they’re saying? What if they’re plotting a terrorist attack? What if they plan to abduct a photogenic child? What if they plan to give cancers to our most beloved reality TV stars?
It could be happening right now and we’d have no way to stop them. That’s why we need to protest this ridiculous, short-sighted proposal that doesn’t begin to consider the real criminals getting away with speaking freely right now.

Quite why anyone is surprised that she’s an idiot is beyond me. She co-hosts The View, ferchrissakes, and with Whoopi and Barbara on board, she’s relegated to fulfilling one of the chairs reserved for ‘hosts who will say dumb things the big-name hosts can pick on them for.’
She also apparently retracted her statements today, claiming she was too nervous and confused to answer the question properly. Which also makes sense. I mean, she’s only the most frequent guest on Ellen’s talk show, and veteran of two or three sitcoms and several movies into the bargain. People with that much experience frequently get too nervous to answer very simple yes-or-no questions that fourth-graders would call you retarded for asking, I’m sure.

Of course, stupid though she might seem, she is a little more intelligent than people have given her credit for: she knew this was going to happen.
“Now just keep praying, that every morning I don’t put my foot in my mouth – but if you know me, it’s bound to happen.”

And she can look on the bright side: it’s not the stupidest view that has ever been expressed on The View – not since Rosie O’Donnell hosted last year, anyway.

This is a great illustration of what happens when people try to be activists based on something they’ve read threads about on online discussion forums. Exhibit: after buying merchandise from Circuit City, customer refuses to show his receipt to the loss prevention guy posted on the door. Because he’s read leftist blogs about freedom, man, and he wants to show THE MAN that he can’t tell Joe Prole what to do. Ignoring the fact that he’s paid for the stuff, and it takes all of four seconds for someone to glance at a receipt and at said stuff in his bag. Ignoring the fact that, goddamnit, the loss prevention guy is hired specifically to CHECK RECEIPTS, and that if a bunch of shoplifters waltz out with stolen goods in store-branded bags, the loss prevention guy is the one who takes the hit for that. Namely by being fired.
Okay, yeah. I get it. You PAID for your goods, so why should you have to prove it? Well, because shoplifters also have the ability to say that they paid for their shit and walk out, with completely straight faces. This isn’t a case of OH MY GOD THE MAN WANTS TO SEE MY RECEIPT HOW DARE YOU ACCUSE ME OF BEING A SHOPLIFTER — it’s a case of, dude, seriously, you should just suck it up and show your receipt out of common courtesy of making it easier for a business to do business.

By the way, I claim utter bias in this: not just because I work for the company in question — I’d call this guy a fucktard if he pulled the same shit on Best Buy, CompUSA, the Apple Store, or Ann fucking Summers — but because twice a week I have to count different categories of items in-store to check if the number we have is the same as the system thinks we should have. And software – one of the things the fucktard in question bought – is a horrible category for this. People steal games all the goddamned time. The very least invasive thing a store can do is ask to see your receipt when you’re leaving. They’re not asking for ID. They’re not running a credit check. They’re not taking your picture for future reference, or your phone number, or any kind of personal details. If you put up a fight about it for no better reason than you don’t want to, that puts you on the same level as the people who bitch and moan about being forced to wear seatbelts by the government.
YOU GAIN NOTHING BY ARGUING THIS, SAVE INCONVENIENCING OTHERS. You’re the kind of jackass who edits random shit out of Wikipedia articles because you think it’s non-notable. You’re the kind of person who finds a loophole in a BB system’s rules to say inflammatory shit and then cries and moans about being thrown out.
You’re a real-life troll, making it difficult for other people just so you can feel smarter and more important.

Here’s a suggestion: if you’re all gung-ho about your rights, do something that MATTERS. Go to a rally. Form a lobbying group to effect change. Organise a letter-writing campaign to your local politician. Run for local office.
Or failing that, try refusing to show ID and strolling straight into a nightclub, past the SAS-looking motherfucker on the door.

So keep reading those online forums about how it’s your right to not leave a tip if you don’t like the way the waitress didn’t smile at you, Mr. Training Consultant Fucktard. And the next time a troll starts wrecking the discussion and then points out that he’s not technically breaking any rules, then remember how you behaved exactly the same way to some poor schmuck trying to do his job.