Liberty and knowledge

 

Free choice in education

Vouched safe with Libertarians.

DNA, surveillance & Freedom

 

Following a European Court ruling there is to be a change in the way that DNA records are held in England and Wales. The indications are that records of those who have not been convicted of an offence will be destroyed in most cases after six years.

 

Many libertarians will instinctively feel that they should oppose the holding of DNA records of innocent people at all and I obviously understand that. I think these proposals are wrong for completely different reasons and I believe that we need to address the question of DNA thoroughly and consistently.

 

Like everybody else born in this country, my birth was registered and a birth certificate was issued which was supposed to reliably establish my identity for all kinds of purposes throughout my life. When this system was introduced many people opposed it as an infringement of personal privacy and liberty. In more than 150 years of use I am unaware of it being misused by government agencies although criminals frequently obtain birth certificates of other people in the furtherance of crime.

 

About forty years ago I was arrested when I was on a political demonstration and my finger prints were taken. I do not know whether these records are still being held, but I presume they are and it is of no interest or concern to me at all. There was some concern about privacy, accuracy and misuse when finger prints were first used in the 1880’s, but a standard was fairly quickly established and nobody has bothered much about them since. Finger print evidence has been critical in ensuring that many violent criminals have been brought to justice and the public protected.

 

Many changes in the 21^st century world have meant that birth certification is no longer a satisfactory way of establishing identity and DNA is a much more accurate and informative biometric identifier than fingerprints.

 

This brings me to the issue of the DNA database. Of course some people will be unhappy that their DNA record is kept on a database if they have not been convicted of any crime and the database is compiled by the police and the record is associated with criminals.

 

From the viewpoint of public protection there is the serious issue that approximately half of those people who have their DNA recorded on the database will go on to be convicted of a criminal offence within six years. That is a very good argument for keeping the information even if the person concerned was not convicted of anything at the time that the sample was taken. The problem, of course, is that the half who have not been convicted within the six year period may contain some future murderers, rapists or terrorists and we are now considering destroying the means by which they could be identified and brought to justice. Several murderers have already been convicted due to DNA records taken for trivial offences or incidents in which there was no conviction at all.

 

This country is now absolutely covered in CCTV cameras monitoring the movements of the vast majority of us as we go about our law abiding lives that should be private to ourselves. Masses of our private website visits, email communications, telephone conversations and other activities are being routinely stored and searched for all kinds of purposes. This is an illegitimate intrusion into privacy and freedom.

 

Being concerned about public protection and considering that the only legitimate activity of government is to ensure the safety and property of its citizens I want criminals to be prevented from committing crime and quickly caught when they do.

 

The solution is straightforward. The criminal DNA database should be continued only until it is fully replaced by a universal biometric record for everybody present in the country. Every child born should have their DNA recorded on the national database. The child’s name would be recorded within the same time limits required for existing birth registration.

 

There is an enormous difference between being able to identify a person with certainty in the event that it is required and spying into their every activity. The former is necessary and the latter is unacceptable. It is also unacceptable that people should feel unjustifiably tainted with criminality, but we must not throw away the best means of preventing crime by failing to put in place a proper system.

 

The twenty first century world requires better and more secure records than nineteenth century birth registration.

A Caution

 

The only legitimate function of government is to provide citizens with personal safety and protection of their property. While the state interferes to an ever increasing extent in the personal lives of everybody and passes ever more restrictive laws on the businesses that provide income, and goods by which we live our lives, it is repeatedly failing to do the job for which it exists.

 

A recent BBC enquiry revealed that in the east of England alone the police issued nearly 30,000 cautions for burglary, sex crimes and assaults in 2005/6. A caution is only given where there is sufficient evidence for a prosecution and yet in this large number of serious offences the police are choosing not to prosecute even though the offender has accepted their guilt.

 

The Home Office website makes a strong point about cannabis having been re-classified as a class B drug (despite the scientific evidence making it very clear that this was not justified) and that personal use of cannabis could result in a prison sentence of up to five years and fourteen years if you sell it. Using cannabis has some risk for the person doing it, although not as much as for some legal and prescription drugs, but it is not something that does harm to other people. Burglary, sex crimes and assault are violent crimes that traumatise victims and cause peoples lives to be seriously limited by fear.

 

We have more police in this country than we have ever had in our history and we also have more laws than ever before. The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police has said in today’s Sunday Times that the public are being let down by failures in the criminal justice system. Too many violent criminal and habitual re-offenders are not being dealt with effectively.

 

The public is worried by it and the police are well aware of it, but the government continues to fail to do its only proper job.

 

Our message must be clear. Stop telling us how to live our peaceful lives in our own way; stop spying on everything we do or say; stop taking most of our money away from us in taxes and then wasting it on failed bankers or stupid PC laws. Above all stop violent criminals from damaging our lives by properly enforcing the simple laws that have regulated our society for centuries and which you have now lost sight of.

 

Dangerous criminals must be taken off our streets and the rest of us must be left to live our lives.

Independence for Kosovo

 

The Kosovan declaration of independence expected today is a very good thing and a small step towards the final resolution of Balkan conflict that has existed for centuries.

 

What is specially interesting about this particular new country creation is that it will be one in which limited sovereignty will exist from the beginning. The European Union will act as guarantors of progress towards EU standards of democracy and justice and there will be substantial military forces present to prevent persecution of the minority Serbs or insurgent activity against the new state.

 

The truth is that no nation on earth has complete national sovereignty although many repeatedly assert it. The USA, as the wealthiest and most powerful nation, has a greater degree of freedom than any other nation and China, by virtue of its vast size and centralised dictatorship, can also afford to resist many of the pressures of the outside world. Even so, even these leviathans are not immune to international law, international trade regulations, global finance and the complex web of pressures from the UN and trading partners or military competitors. Smaller nations have their own governments, legal systems and foreign policies, but they have to accommodate much more to the world around them, and to differing extents depending on their strength and influence.

 

Many in Kosovo will resent the presence of foreign guardians of their behaviour, but their government has recognised the huge financial and other benefits that will come from ending the period of UN peace keeping and entering into nation building.

 

Serbia will be hostile to Kosovan independence and will continue to claim that it is an integral part of Serbia. That is understandable, but there can be no acceptance of any ‘holy’ claims to Kosovan land or submission to mystical claims about the birthplace of the Serbian nation being in Kosovo. Serbs in Kosovo have a right to full protection, decent treatment, proper rights as citizens and the ability to maintain their culture. The proper and sensible course for Serbia is to work hard towards achieving EU membership for itself so that in the not too distant future Serbia and Kosovo can be fully autonomous entities within the EU whose citizens can move freely between the two states without visa or other constraint and trading freely with the same currency.

 

The responsibility for Kosovo is to enjoy its new statehood responsibly. To make as rapid progress as possible to democratic development and to grow its economy for the betterment of all its citizenry.

 

I wish them very well in that endeavour.

 

Apart from Serbia, Russia and some other countries will oppose Kosovan independence because they fear that it will encourage the independence aspirations of some of their nationalities or cultural groups. Their fears are not without reason, but the real question to be asked is why others should not achieve autonomy or independence.

 

Small size does not preclude independent status. San Marino, Monaco, Monte Carlo, Lichtenstein, Luxembourg and many other examples can be given of tiny states doing perfectly well. The Isle of Man and the Channel Isles are good examples of tiny places with their own governments and a great degree of autonomy,but not the extent of sovereignty that is normally associated with state hood.

 

Scotland has a parliament while still remaining a full part of the UK. Wales and Northern Ireland have elected assemblies short of a parliament. Many in their communities have aspirations to increase their autonomy and they may well look to the Kosovan process. Beyond that, why shouldn’t the Basques, Corsicans, Sicilians, Bretons and many others look to developing themselves as separate or autonomous entities within the EU. It would be culturally enriching, tension reducing and give the possibility of new and much broader views of statehood models for the world.

Rowan Williams and sharia – Stupid, Wrong and Dangerous

 

Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, has today gone from just being a rather silly man to being a dangerous one.

 

In an interview with the BBC he says that it now seems inevitable that Britain should allow parts of Islamic Sharia law to be incorporated into British law if social cohesion is to be maintained.

 

He says that he is thinking in terms of certain aspects of financial and marriage law being given the support of legal enforcement rather than the hideous punishments of sharia being introduced to the UK.

 

Williams points out that orthodox Jews have their own courts that have some forms of recognition and he goes on to waffle about Catholic attitudes to abortion needing, and getting, some form of recognition by doctors being able to exempt themselves from involvement in abortion.

 

What he is doing is deliberately confusing the right of some professionals to decline to take part in certain practices on the basis of conscience with the introduction of a different system of law for part of the population. That is dangerous, divisive and, to me at least, abhorrent.

 

Muslims can already conduct their financial affairs according to their preferences. Basically that means avoiding deposits and loans involving interest. Provided they have entered a contract, they will have the protection of civil law to enforce those contracts. They do not need, and should not have, any special or different treatment in law.

 

When it comes to marriage, divorce, custody and other relationship matters, it is utterly unacceptable that sharia should have any recognition at all. All sharia courts are male dominated and the culture in Islamic societies generally is discriminatory. If there were a choice of using British law or sharia courts in Britain, muslim women would come under irresistible pressure to use the sharia system. As a result they would lose custody of their children when they should not, they would suffer disadvantage in divorce and in financial settlements.

 

Above all, the objection to incorporation of sharia into British law is that we live in a democracy. That requires that our chosen government is the only law making body in the country and the same law must apply to everybody without exception.

 

One of the failings of our system is that it includes bishops like Williams to have a place in the House of Lords where they are able to speak and vote on legislation despite being accountable to nobody. In this recent statement Williams has shown himself unfit to be a part of the legislature.

 

All religious involvement in our legislature should be abolished. We now need an end to the established church and we must have the abolition of blasphemy laws, tax exemption for religious schools and all other preferential treatment for religion by the state. People are entitled to hold religious beliefs, but the church has no entitlement to influence law, undermine democracy or to be subsidised by taxpayers.

Organ Donation – Presumed Consent – Market Solution

 

The UK has a lower rate of organ donation than other developed countries. In particular Spain, which has a presumed consent system, achieves a very much higher donation rate.

 

Waiting lists for organ transplants are long. This obviously causes distress to those who are waiting, but their condition also deteriorates during the wait so that the surgery, when it does happen, is less likely to be successful and there is a danger that they could die before an organ becomes available. Such deaths are regularly happening.

 

The British government is now saying that it will support a system of presumed consent like that in Spain. That would undoubtedly improve the number of organs becoming available, but there is no guarantee that it would meet the level of demand. What is even more likely is that the issue will continue to drag on without any changes being made. The possibility of an ‘opt out’ rather than ‘opt in’ system, as it is sometimes called, has been raised periodically ever since transplant surgery started, but no progress has been made.

 

If we are ever to completely get rid of waiting lists or eradicate unnecessary delays in getting surgery for those who need it, we have to do more than just change to presumed consent.

 

It is common for people to say that you cannot put a price on life and there is at the moment, only voluntary, free organ donation, but the truth is that people are dying because of the lack of organs and no amount of extra training, encouragement or changes in the balance of consent from relatives will overcome the shortage. There are enough people dying with healthy body parts to meet the demand for organ transplantation, but they are being lost. What would change that is to create market in organs suitable for transplant.

 

I know that many people will recoil from the suggestion that human body parts could be bought and sold, but shouldn’t we be more upset that sick people are dying unnecessarily due to a lack of organs? Medical professionals are not very good at discussing with bereaved relatives whether their lost loved ones organs might be used for life saving surgery. Why should they be? Their choice was to enter the medical profession and the skills they were trained for had nothing to do with trying to persuade grieving people to deal with difficult decisions.

 

The government should not be involved in this matter either. A person has the right to decide for themselves what they want to do with their own body, it is nothing to do with the state. In the event of death, the decision of whether organs might be made available for transplant passes to their next of kin. Whether it is a decision taken when they are alive (through holding a donor card) or by relatives after death, it should be up to the donor and not the government whether payment should be accepted for the organs.

 

At the moment in the UK, and most other countries, it is illegal to buy and sell human organs. The same is not the case for other valuable body products. The situation varies from country to country, but blood, sperm and eggs are all bought and sold. Why should the same not apply to kidneys, which may be from living donors, or any of the organs that are harvested from those who have recently died?

 

I am perfectly aware of poor people in developing countries being coerced to donate organs for money and even the sickening stories of people being executed for organs in China. These examples of gross exploitation should be dealt with by proper national laws and international pressure. They have nothing to do with the achievement of good and timely medical treatment in well regulated developed countries.

 

It is time for the government in the UK to repeal the laws that prevent the purchase and sale of human organs. Private organisations should be allowed to develop to handle the purchase, sale and transportation of human organs. This is not a matter in which government should have any role at all other than preventing criminal behaviour. This move would take courage, but the gain would be an elimination of people suffering on organ donor waiting lists and a substantial fall in the number of deaths of people awaiting treatment.

Legalise All Drugs – Richard Brunstrom

Richard Brunstrom, the Chief Constable of North Wales, has again called for the legalisation of all drugs. This is a courageous statement by Brunstrom and he should be congratulated.

Despite decades of attempts, many millions of pounds and repeated new laws and initiatives, recreational drug use is more widespread than ever and there is a huge crime industry around the illegal production, import and distribution of drugs. There is absolutely nothing that the government can do which will stop drug use and anyway it should be a matter of individual decision whether anybody wants to use them. It has nothing to do with the state and they should get out of it.

Brunstrom quite rightly points out that alcohol and tobacco are drugs that have very serious implications for health. Some illegal drugs, such as ecstasy, are very safe by comparison. It would be absolutely crazy to try to make the use of alcohol and tobacco illegal and there is no possible justification for prohibition of other recreational substances.

In one respect Brunstrom is wrong. He advocates the supply of drugs through state outlets. This is frankly ridiculous. All state enterprises are inefficient and there is no more reason to involve the state in this than there is in the sale of cigarettes or drink. Drug users should buy their supplies from regulated outlets in exactly the same way as they buy their beer and cigarettes.

Those who become addicted to drugs and want to overcome their addiction have a responsibility to deal with that themselves. Nicotine is very addictive, but a great many people overcome it when they are ready to do so. There is no justification whatever for free methedone programmes or any other sort of maintenance of drug addicts at the taxpayer’s expense.

Listen to Brunstrom. Stop the idiotic behaviour of arresting Pete Doherty and all the others. The only harm they do is to themselves and they are the only ones responsible for that. The real harm to society does not come from recreational drug use, it comes from the armed criminals who control the market so long as it is illegal and it comes from the massive burden on the taxpayer of imprisoning inadequate drug users and paying maillions for idiotic support and rehabilitation programmes that give away free drugs and useless counselling.

Follow the example of Portugal. Legalise all drugs now.

Wetherspoons, Children 2 Alcoholic Drinks & Freedom

Mr Gandy, who was in the company of some friends who included a two year old child, got angry because the Wetherspoons pub in Wallasey refused to let him have more than two alcoholic drinks.

The reason was that Wetherspoons have a national policy that children can only come into their pubs if they are having a meal with an adult. They have city centre pubs that do not have space for child recreation facilities. They are happy for families to eat there, but they do not want adults to be accompanied by children for long stays or while the adults are drinking and socialising.

This company have the absolute right to decide the policy that suits their business model. From the reports, Mr Gandy was told politely of the pub policy. He left and chose to eat elsewhere. I am afraid Mr. Gandy has no cause for complaint. The company knows whether it is able to, or wants to,cater for children and it is entitled to decide whether it wants its pubs to have a family ambience or a place primarily for adult drinking and socialising.

The alternative to individual licensed premises and pub chains making decisions of this kind is that government will continue to pass more and more restrictive laws that limit the freedom of all of us. It seems to me to be a very good thing that children should be aware from the earliest possible stage that a great many adults like to drink alcohol and it ought to be a natural part of life. We know that some people misuse alcohol or do not have sufficient self control to drink sensibly and I most certainly want children to be shielded from unpleasantness, misbehaviour and worse by drunks. Those licensed premises who provide child recreation areas and choose to market themselves to families with children should do that and have their own policies to deal with situations that they consider to be unsuitable. Wetherspoons have not chosen that route and that is their entitlement.

I do not smoke and I am happy to have restaurants, etc. to go to that are smoke free, but It seems to me to be absolutely wrong that those people who do smoke are now not allowed to enjoy their habit in their own businesses and cannot choose to provide indoor facilities for smokers if that is their wish. Before it became illegal to smoke in public places there were non smoking pubs and restaurants and non smoking areas in many, many more establishments. Now it is not even possible for a membership only smokers club to have a place where they can meet and socialise together while they enjoy their common interest. Smoking is harmful to health, and so is excessive alcohol drinking, but adults should be able to decide on their own health and enjoyment. It is not for the government to think that it knows what is best for us and prevent us from doing as we wish.

Well done Wetherspoons. You were right and Mr Gandy is wrong. Take note government. There is no need to tell every pub, club restaurant or whatever else, whether they can or cannot have children in them and what time of day it can happen or how many drinks the responsible adult can have. If establishments are not properly managed or if individuals fails in their responsibilities, they should be dealt with for their own actions. The great majority of responsible people should be allowed to make their own choices.

Repeal the oppressive smoking laws. Wetherspoons decided that their pubs would be non smoking before the law made them.