Liberty Alone

Trying to censor Wikileaks over Northern Rock this time…

Strangely they’re refusing to hand over the order unless it won’t be given to Wikileaks… Surely you have a right to know what the charges against you are? Or is this considered equal to terrorism under the law?

It seems everything is depressing for liberals at the moment.
We have the smoking ban infringing on property rights.
We have the EU advocating internet censorship and looking towards China for ideas.
The new Criminal Justice Bill seeks to make ‘offensive images’ illegal - no matter how they were created. This is now well into the realms of thought crime.
That beacon of freedom, the USA, is sliding ever more towards authoritarianism, following our descent.
The US congress has failed to back opening up immigration more and is adopting an ever more protectionist stance (more proof that the Democrats are no more liberals than the Republicans).
There’s the usual calls for ever more power to detain without charge and suspend habeas corpus.
There’s an increase in intolerance and bigotry even within the Anglican Church.
Not to mention long term concerns about ID cards, state surveillance through traffic cameras and road charging, the ever increasing state and its increasing theft of money through taxation and regulation.

About all that is going right is that we’re not in France, Russia or Zimbabwe.

I’ve just come across an interesting idea about the ‘Great Firewall of China’. Freeborn John discovered he was blocked so placed some pseudo communist blurb which an intelligent reader would realise was rubbish but a computer might not. Lo and behold he was removed from the blocked list.

You can find out if you’re blocked here. I appear to be blocked…

Wow, so much has been happening recently, and typically all when I have personal things to occupy myself with.

I havn’t had time to digest the news from Harrogate, except Ming’s speech, which whilst I see what he meant was rather stupid (its obvious what Tories and the press would make of it…)

Trident: I kept out of the debate as I couldn’t make up my mind (on principle I’m for unilateral disarmament, on practicalities I see the leadership’s point… I waver between the two positions frequently). On balance, I think the right decision was made by conference though (I would like to see a sustained and reasoned attempt to pursuade the general population of the case to disarm though).

The big news of course is the police investigation into the cash for honours scandal and possible coverups by those in power. At some point I will get round to voicing my view on the issue, but for now I shall briefly comment on the injunction and its lifting:

There is one case where I am sympathetic to censorship. That is where disclosure of information could compromise an ongoing police investigation or an ongoing prosecution (actually, there is another- protecting personal information). I am concerned that the publishing of the information could jeopordise the police investigation, if it does then the Guardian has behaved incredibly irresponsibly as the prosecution for the alleged crimes should be fair and thorough.
Of course, if charges are not brought, all information should be available, but until such an event I do worry about revelations.

SpyBlog alerts me to a new anthology of Science Fiction stories which glorify terrorism.

Costing £15 from the publishers (or £20 from Amazon) this really highlights the absurd restriction on free speech this legislation is. If you want a copy you should act soon before the book is banned.

I always feel when I post something like this that I should say that I do not deny the reality of climate change, even if I am sceptical about many of the more alarmist claims (often made by people who stand to gain in some way from people’s fear). So, for the record: The climate of the earth is changing. It is warming. Part of this is due to human action and we can and should do something to mitigate the effects we have and reduce the amount of climate changing pollution we emit (but in a liberal, non-coercive way with no political motive behind government actions).

Now that’s out of the way, I see that there have been calls in the US to censor sceptical scientists, there have even been suggestions for Nuremburg style trials for them (admittedly from the more lunatic end of the green movement - but aired on national television).
This is extremely troubling. Science works through debate and research. When you stifle debate you stifle progress and can hold onto potentially damaging beliefs.
To combat sceptics you should conduct your own research and submit that to peer review and review their work - are there any problems with the methodology? Are their conclusions supported by the evidence?
And when you do your research, do your best to remain unbiased- if you want a particular result then you will see it in the results (this of course goes for both sides of the debate).

The blog post I link to above does seem somewhat partisan, but the essential points - the outrage at the censorship - hold whatever your view on climate change. (A quick google throws some light on his position - it is claimed he was hired to directly attack climate change science - he was also one of the main people in the infamous ‘Swift Boat Veterans for Truth’ campaign - not a particularly unbiased source you might say).

Censorship is bad, censorship in science even more so, and on an issue as important as climate change, we cannot risk this course of action. We need good knowledge of the science, away from the political posturing of any group. Science should lead policy in this case, and that goes for alarmists and deniers.