US use of words like “care workers” or “freedom’n’democracy” is confusing. They also have this very confusing Patriot Act, so long you’d never read it, and so confusing that the DoJ has a special web site to dispel confusion about it.
The DoJ spells out what terrorism actually is
Reality: The Patriot Act limits domestic terrorism to conduct that breaks criminal laws, endangering human life.
Shooting your hunting partner is not terrorism. But driving a full school bus over a cliff while drunk would be, if drink driving is a criminal offence. Injecting yourself with a supply of dirty drugs is clearly terrorism. Presumably neglecting to maintain your elevator or manufacturing wrongly labelled food will be terrorism, if there are allergy issues.
Cut to the UK where it becomes illegal to glorify this activity terrorism. Gordon Brown and Charles Clarke helpfully explain it’s to deal with the familiar problem of people actually saying “er, I, er glorify this or that terrorist act”, not that we know anyone who has been stressed out by that kind of talk.
Put the two together and where does it leave us. Do not glorify whose driving might be construed as without due care and attention. Do not praise the electoral registration department of Waverley Borough Council, whose sale of the full electoral roll to junk mailers Roffe Swaine was a criminal act. Careful what you say at the Christmas party, councillor. (Actually I go too far - junk mail does not endanger life, unless the recipient were to burst a blood vessel in apoplectic rage).
This is a stupid rant about stupd things but there is a sort of point.
Computerised government is based on mechanised rules. If the rules anything like as damnably stupid as ones like these then the machines will remorselessly carry out some damn stupid things. Increasingly there wont be room for human interpretation as the computers discriminate, deny access, blacklist and disempower people. We as humans will have to try and fight back against Kafkaesque insanity delivered by machines. It wont be fun.
Published by William Heath on 19/02/06 at 11:16pm
Next entry: writetothem.com's first birthday
Previous entry: It's unofficial! Almost three in ten prefer Directgov
This page has been viewed 591708 times
Entries: 1716 | Comments: 2785 | Trackbacks: 206
Most Recent Entry: 01/07/2009 10:59 am
Most Recent Comment: 01/02/2009 04:11 pm
Members: 185 | Logged in: 0 | Guests: 30
Most recent visitor: 01/07/2009 07:07 pm
Most visitors ever: 443 on 10/12/2005 02:21 pm
The attempts by the west/developed world to produce a precise definition of terrorism have been producing some impressive stuff. I have a distinct recollection of Charles Clarke claiming last autumn that in today’s world there were no longer any situations where political violence could be justified (which would potentially be a nice, tidy rule if true). And the original consultation (ahem...) on glorification et al proposed criminalising views which “Advocate violence in furtherance of particular beliefs”.
It may have fallen off the list after they noticed it would cover invading Iraq. The document itself now seems illusive, as according to the Home Office web site there doesn’t seem to have been a consultation in the first place. But it should be treasured for posterity, and can be found here:
http://www.j-n-v.org/London_Blasts/050805_Home_Office_Consultation.htm
Reply by on 02/20/06 at 10:26 am