Our Orwellian world

Item one: a man is jailed for three-and-a-half years for carrying a blueprint of a rocket through Luton Airport:

British man who was found with blueprints for a rocket in his luggage at Luton Airport has been jailed for three-and-a-half years.

Yassin Nassari, 28, from Ealing, west London, was earlier found guilty at the Old Bailey of possessing documents likely to be useful to a terrorist.

[…]

Sentencing him, Judge Gerald Gordon said: “I have come to the conclusion that, sadly, like a number of young Muslims, you have somehow been indoctrinated into beliefs supporting terrorism by others.

“I have no doubt you wanted to immerse yourself in this fundamentalist trash, but in the material available to me there is nothing to indicate that any actual terrorist use would have been made of it by anyone.”

Nassari’s hard drive contained documents about martyrdom and weapons training, as well as instructions on how to construct the Qassam artillery rocket – a home-made steel rocket used by terrorist groups in the Middle-East.

So even though there was no evidence that this guy was involved with any terrorist organisation or intended to perform any terrorist acts himself, the mere fact of possessing documents that are a bit dodgy landed him in jail. Really, you don’t need to be an evil terrorist to be interested in the sort of material described in the last quoted paragraph; who hasn’t downloaded The Anarchist Cookbook at one point or another out of curiosity? There are plenty of people interested in weapons, guns, warfare etc. who aren’t terrorists or even terrorist sympathisers; remember Gareth the T.A. nerd from the Office?

Item two: The Metropolitian Police is given real-time access to London’s congestion charge cameras:

Police are to be given live access to London’s congestion charge cameras – allowing them to track all vehicles entering and leaving the zone.

Anti-terror officers will be exempted from parts of the Data Protection Act to allow them to see the date, time and location of vehicles in real time.

They previously had to apply for access on a case-by-case basis.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith blamed the “enduring vehicle-borne terrorist threat to London” for the change.

The thing is, a) the only true “vehicle-borne terrorist threat to London” was organised by the Keystone Cops branch of Al Queda, b) you cannot tell from the outside if a car is a terrorist car c) if you know enough to know which car to track, you also could’ve gotten permission to do so anyway under the old rules. In his science fiction thriller Whole Wide World Paul J. McAuley predicted that ultimately, all of the UK’s CCTV cameras would be linked up into one giant network, controlled by police computers; this seems like a step in that direction. The Met says this capacity will only be used to fight terrorist activity, but once a capability is there, other uses will be found for it, as the internet itself has shown us.

Item three: The association of Chief Police Officers wants unlimited detention without charge, again for the noble cause of fighting terrorism. And again the question crops up, what is the purpose of locking people up if you don’t have the evidence to charge them, let alone convict them?

Item four: the Dutch police can now keep records of anybody who interacts with them — detainees, suspects, victims, witnesses, literally anybody– for up to five years (Dutch). In the first year, any police officer can look into these records, afterwards it’s only accesible to those who have “a good reason” to do so. But that’s not all, as it’s not just the police who can view these records, but also other parties with a vested interest: social workers, housing societies, even shopowners. All in the name of fighting crime.

Police get away with murder

Last year, Jean Charles de Menezes was murdered by Metropolitian police officers. It took the Crown Prosecution Service more then a year to decide, surprise, surprise, not to prosecute his murderers:

Menezes lying in the carriage after his murder

I have now completed my review into the circumstances surrounding the death of Jean Charles de Menezes.

Following the investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission, their report and supporting evidence was sent to me.

I asked them to carry out some additional enquiries, which they have done, and I am now satisfied that I have sufficient evidence to reach a decision in this matter.

The offences I considered included murder, manslaughter, forgery, and breaches of health and safety legislation.

All cases are considered in accordance with the principles in the Code for Crown Prosecutors, which states that before a prosecution can commence, there must be a realistic prospect of conviction.

If there is not sufficient evidence then a case cannot proceed, no matter how important or serious it may be.

After the most careful consideration I have concluded that there is insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against any individual police officer.

But I am satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to prosecute the Office of Commissioner of Police for an offence under sections 3 and 33 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 of failing to provide for the health, safety and welfare of Jean Charles de Menezes on 22 July 2005.

It seems The Sun was right then, when it said the Menezes killers would not be charged. This despite all the evidence that Menezes was never a threat, that the police officers in question knew this and that they tried their best to cover their murder up. Despite all that, these murderers not only walk away without charges, but they can resume their career of killing innocent civilians in the name of “combatting terrorism”.

Disgusting.

Asbo nation

The asbo, antisocial behaviour order, is one of the more odious pieces of social control Nu Labour have managed to bring in. As it is a civil procedure, it has none of the safeguards of criminal proceedings, can be brought against people to disallow behaviour that is not criminal in itself, but carries criminal penalties. You could find yourself in jail for something as innocuous as walking down the wrong street or wearing your underwear where people can see it.

The BBC News Magazine has done an occasional series on asbos handed out, some of which are plainly ridicolous, some of which are responses to things that are indeed serious nuisances, but all of which are basically NIMBY responses: Not In My Back Yard. Play loud music, attempting to commit suicide, addicted to petrol sniffing? We don’t care, we just do not want you to do it here. It’s the institutionalisation of Mrs. Grundy, with the government in the role of social arbiter. It is the ultimate in symbol politics, as it only treats the symptoms of “antisocial behaviour” rather than its causes.

It is also dangerous, as at least one attempt (scroll down) has already been made to penalise free speech…

The myth of evil victims

Quite a while ago, Meryl Yourish wrote an article called the myth of the evil lawyers. In this she defends everybody’s favourite whipping boys (and girls), the lawyers from the accusation that it’s they who are responsible for the US being such a ligitious society. Which I think she is right in, but she does miss the point in where she shifts the blame to and in her explenation of why the US is so ligitious. I’ll quote the three paragraphs that form the heart of her argument.

But here’s the thing. Blaming lawyers for our litigious society is comparable to blaming drugs for their addiction. You show me one case of an attorney forcing a client to sue someone. The reason we have more lawsuits per square mile than any other nation is not because our legal system allows the unmonied individual to sue the wealthy corporations. It is because Americans now seem to have the idea that personal responsibility is for everyone else.

A crazy person pushes a man in front of an oncoming subway train in New York. He survives, he sues the city. They should have prevented it, he says. A crazy person jumps in front of a subway train, trying to commit suicide. He survives, and sues the city. They should have prevented him from being
able to jump, he says. The World Trade Center is attacked by terrorists. In order to prevent the plethora of lawsuits that could put several airlines out of business, the federal government sets up a fund–paid for by taxpayers–that families of the victims can draw from rather than sue. Otherwise, the families would have sued the airlines. They should have prevented it. Or the Port Authority, maybe,
who built the WTC. The towers obviously should have been built to withstand a terrorist attack. Sue! And here’s the kicker, which apparently nobody believes: Sometimes, shit happens. Sometimes, really bad stuff happens that results in horrible injuries and deaths. And often, it isn’t anybody’s fault. People
like the one in the subway who pushed that man under the train often exhibit no signs of insanity until that horrible moment. It wasn’t anyone’s fault. It was a horrible, horrible coincidence, and it’s terrible that he lost his legs, but the man has no right to sue the city for it. But you know he’ll win at least a six-figure settlement, because the new American Dream is no longer to work hard and become a millionaire: It’s to hit the lottery, literally or figuratively. The literal lottery is the one with the numbers. The figurative lottery: Get some kind of injury, hopefully not too incapacitating, and sue. Hell, you can even sue the airlines for not having your seatbelt on during turbulence when the captain specifically tells you all to put the belts back on. With any luck, it’ll only be a slight case of whiplash and you’ll get 50 grand for it.

I think Meryl is largely correct in her analysis, but misses the point as to why people bring on lawsuits. In my view, as much to do with not acknowledging personal responsibility or trying to get rich quick, as
with the everyday realities of the American system. That guy who lost his legs, how else is he going to get the money to pay for his hospital bills, his revalidation? How else will he make good the money he lost because he cannot do his job anymore?

The fact that there’s no consistent health and disability coverage in the US, that there’s only a very limited form of social security, that there’s little or no help available for people who do not have the resources (anymore) to take care of themselves, encourages people to sue somebody, anybody, who could even remotely be made to be responsible for their plight. In that light, it makes sense to go after the city rather than the person who pushed you off the platform, as the city actually has the money. If his case is really that flimsy, it will still be thrown out of court.

Nor do I think that the government offering extra assistance to the victims of a disaster is all that extraordinary. It is indeed one of the core tasks of government to help those in need and something that should be done as a matter of course.

This does not mean Meryl is totally wrong or even largely wrong though. As always, things are not that
simple. Partially the US is more ligitious because people expect somebody to pay for their misfortune, no matter how ridicilous their case (an offshoot from that whole “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” thing perhaps?), partially it is because people have no choice
and partially it’s also because there are quite a few lawyers who do indeed prey on such people, fueling their hopes of getting rich quick. Certainly the advertisements certain law firms put out here in the UK do so, I cannot imagine it’s any different in the US.

I also talked this through with S—, who is in fact a lawyer (but doesn’t play one on tv) and she has
a somewhat different perspective on this issue:

The US has a rights based constititution and caselaw has been made almost on the hoof in a little over
200 years. Whereas law has accreted in European countries over much much longer and is therefore more tightly circumscribed: there are holes a mile wide in US caselaw. Put the two things together and you get litigiousness.