Who will stand me bail?

(Wolfers' note: I had intended to write about this a couple of days ago, but real life and Blogger throwing a complete Benny prevented this. I notice some comments that were here have disappeared. It wasn't me wot deleted them, a big boy did it and ran away.)

Well, looks like I could be in some trouble here.

THE European Court of Justice ruled yesterday that the European Union can lawfully suppress political criticism of its institutions and of leading figures, sweeping aside English Common Law and 50 years of European precedents on civil liberties.

What? Really? You must forgive me, I'm completely not in slightest surprised by this.

A chap called Bernard Connolly, an economist, was sacked in '95 for being critical of the single currency. This has been held to be legal.

The ruling stated that the commission could restrict dissent in order to "protect the rights of others" and punish individuals who "damaged the institution's image and reputation". The case has wider implications for free speech that could extend to EU citizens who do not work for the Brussels bureaucracy.

 The court called the Connolly book  "aggressive, derogatory and insulting", taking particular umbrage at the author's suggestion that Economic and Monetary Union was a threat to democracy, freedom and "ultimately peace".

Oh, wow. This is what they mean by the phrase 'post-democratic'.

Hang on, let's look at the date here. 1995. This was sixteen years ago. For the better part of two decades this has been their plan, the complete eradication of any dissent to their manifest destiny, to their, dare I say it, divine right?

Damaso Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer obviously thinks it is their divine right to do what they want:

However, it dropped an argument put forward three months ago by the advocate-general, Damaso Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, which implied that Mr Connolly's criticism of the EU was akin to extreme blasphemy, and therefore not protected speech.

Blasphemy? Give me a God-damned break, will you?

Make no mistake, these are dangerous, dangerous people. They care not for our safety and security, nor do they care for the nation states of Europe, they care only for their controlling every aspect of life in our continent.

But that's not all, oh no:

Mr Connolly, who has been told to pay the European Commission's legal costs, said the proceedings did not amount to a fair hearing. He said: "We're back to the Star Chamber and Acts of Attainder: the rights of defendants are not respected or guaranteed in any way; the offence of seditious libel has been resurrected."

Not only do we have our right to freedom of expression taken from us, we also have to pay them to take it from us, stamp all over it, take a dump on it and set it alight in the street. Nice.

Oh, you want more? How about this?

Mr Colomer wrote in his opinion last November that a landmark British case on free speech had "no foundation or relevance" in European law, suggesting that the European Court was unwilling to give much consideration to British legal tradition.

Yeah, how'd you like them apples? Anyone who tells you that we need to be in Europe and not run by it is either lying to you or an idiot. Probably both.

But, hang on, Wolfers, I hear you say, our rights are protected:

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

ARTICLE 10

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

Oh, well that's OK then. Because it is quite clear. Oh, hang on. . .

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

So, basically, we have the freedom of expression, unless they say we don't.

This doesn't even make me angry any more, it just makes me very, very frightened.

When it all kicks off, we'll be fine.

OK, let's carry on with this silly season malarkey.

There are many benefits to Libertarianism, but one of them will likely (and rightly) stay out of reach. Say what you like about fascism, national socialism and communism, but credit where it is due, those guys do scary very well. They are also very adept at designing an impressive uniform. A uniform is something we as Libertarians are most unlikely to ever have.

Doesn't mean we can't do scary though.

Ladies and gentleman, I give you Glenn Jacobs, who under his pseudonym of Kane is the current World Heavyweight Champion:



OK, it's not a 'real' sporting event, (cricket, cycling, athletics, snooker, anyone?), but if it all kicks off, I'm making sure I stand next to Jacobs. He's one of us and blogs under the name of Citizen X here.

The One That Can Tell You Why. . .

It's becoming something of an obsession, and recently I had a person from one of the opinion poll companies round bearing statements such as 'Internet access is a right' and 'The government should do more to ensure everyone has broadband'. I had to say whether I agreed strongly, disagreed strongly, well, you get the idea.

Why is the state so desperate to get us linked up to the 'net?

The race is on to get as many British people online as possible by 2012, Martha Lane Fox has told the BBC.

As the government's new Digital Champion she has been charged with getting millions online who are not yet connected to the internet.

But why? Bloggers are a continual pain in the arse for governments and their opposition. The internet has also empowered the consumer in terms of news, you don't sit down when you are told to see the news and you don't have to only hear what the editors want to tell you, that's an enormous groundshift from the consumer's relationship with papers, radio and TV.

"They've asked me to see what really clever applications of technology could help people get more employment, get more choices, take control of where they live of their own situation in a slightly more cohesive way," the co-founder of lastminute.com said.

By reading that, it would seem that the government want to fly in the face of everything they've done over the last 12 years and actually empower people. I don't buy it.

Ms Lane Fox has indicated that she wants to concentrate on the six million poorest "nonliners" first.

She will be relying on people already online to convince others to join them.

"The only way I think we can do that is if all of us as individuals sit down and think okay, how can I bring someone on this journey with me?

"Get kids training grannies, get all of us kind of plugging into our local communities to try and pull the whole country along.

We do it to help the poor.

Well, I'm sorry, but the internet, whilst being a very useful tool, is not absolutely required for everyday life. And what is this journey? Why should we all have the internet? What's in it for them? I have visions of some sort of Matrix Lite society.

I have a friend who enjoys conspiracies, and this one is a goodie, and not too far fetched. It is his belief, and with everything we've seen thus far, it is hard to argue against it, that the government is keen to introduce a national service provider akin to the Cloud system.

In a nutshell, you plug your monitor into your keyboard and your keyboard into the phone socket, absolutely everything you do on and with your computer is stored centrally. Documents you write, emails you send and recieve, websites you visit, online banking details, contacts, the lot.

Now it all makes sense. Of course with a centrally controlled system a website that the authorities don't want to be available simply isn't there. If a news site publishes a story they don't like, it simply disappears. If a blogger writes an article they find objectionable, it is taken down. The blogger would probably suffer the same fate.

The internet is a free as anything could probably ever be. The political class hate it. It must be like a maddening itch they can never reach. So great is their desire for control over every single facet of our lives that they will do anything to get control of it. So you persaude people they cannot live without the internet, you raise more taxes to put the system together (modem licence, anyone?) and then get everyone onto a system which is little more than a heavily regulated, constantly moderated intranet.

Jesus, I hate these bastards. Scary, scary shit.

The One That Says 'It Was Only A Song. . . Jeez!'. . .

I'm not sure whether I should be alarmed or entertained by this little story from Nanny Beeb:

People in Azerbaijan who voted for a song by neighbouring Armenia in May's Eurovision Song Contest have been questioned by the authorities.

Perhaps there's a Ministry of Artistic Integrity. I don't think I've heard the song, but I'm sure it isn't going to win any awards. Maybe Azerbaijan are very concerned about the public's consumption of the arts?

One man told the BBC he was accused of being unpatriotic and a potential security threat, after he sent a text backing Armenia's song, Jan Jan.

What? A potential security threat? Bloody hell. He voted for a fucking song. It's not just us that use the security dogwhistle as an excuse to give someone a hard time for the hell of it, then.

The Azerbaijani authorities said people had merely been invited to explain why they voted for Armenia.

Bloody hell. I remember reading about an East Berliner who was given a hard time by the Stasi for being a Hertha Berlin fan (who played in the Bundesliga in the West) and listening to their matches on the radio. Supporting a Western Team was dangerously subversive (Dynamo Berlin were despised as the Stasi club and finally died in 1991), but to be given a hard time for text voting in the Eurovision? Invited? How? Would you like to explain your vote, or would you like Big Ivan here to hit your hands with this lump hammer? Jesus.

One final little question; How did the authorities know this man had voted for the Armenians? I'm willing to bet that it was down to the retention of all telephone calls and text messages on some sort of central database.

Of course, that could never happen here, and would never be used for such a trivial 'offence', no it would only be used on naughty brown people.

The One That Is Scared. . .

Very, very scared indeed.

I'm not so naive, I'm perfectly well aware that 'anti-terror' legislation won't always be used against those suspected of terrorism, we've seen it a few times where these powers have been used against individuals in ridiculous situations because their dog has shat in the park, or they've left their bin lid open or they've taken a picture of a police car.

Now Gordon has gone a step further by using anti-terror legislation against a whole country?

Bloody hell, prison overcrowding is bad enough as it is, but is there really room in Belmarsh for the whole of Iceland?

Of course we were no doubt told that this legislation would only be used in extreme circumstances and against, y'know, really bad people. OK we had a bit of a barney about cod, but let's face facts, that has to be the lamest 'war' in history. Iceland is hardly guilty of terrorism, a few bankers are guilty of being really stupid, but a number of British 'financial experts' are just of guilty of not ignoring the warning signs and getting our cash out, so why use this legislation to seize and/or freeze their assets?

Make no mistake, if ZNL have no hesitation in going after a whole country, they'll have no problem in going after you, for whatever reason they feel like.

It is often said that a government should be scared of its electorate, not the other way around, but I am very quietly shitting myself.