| Judges, politicians and civil liberties |
|
| Written by Tim Worstall | |
| Saturday, 26 April 2008 | |
|
The gloriously vindictive and absurd asset confiscation orders imposed upon terrorist suspects have been declared unlawful: Anti-terrorism legislation was condemned as poorly thought-out by a senior High Court judge yesterday as he declared that the Treasury’s powers to freeze suspects’ bank accounts were unlawful. Mr Justice Collins said that terrorist financial orders — introduced by Gordon Brown when he was Chancellor — were absurd, unfair and a breach of fundamental rights. Excellent: it was clear to anyone with an ounce of sense that the authorities being able to confiscate all you own, upon no evidence that they had to show to anyone, with no method of appeal possible, was an "absurdity", as the judge indeed said that it was. Slippery slope arguments are dangerous things (and indeed, Madsen of this parish has chided me for using them in the past, even sent me a book explaining why they should not be used) but then so are slippery slopes themselves. Yes, it's true that only 59 people were subject to such terror asset freeses, but we've just had recently the news that the basic concept is to be extended: Police will be able to seize high-value assets from suspected drug dealers as soon as they are arrested under plans to be unveiled this week by Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary. Yes, that's right: upon arrest, nothing so boring or inconvenient as a trial (under either civil or criminal procedures), simply the impounding of your property at the say so of the authorities. And of course, just like the earlier terror orders, these will of course only ever be used in the most serious and alarming of cases. There certainly won't be any slippery slope to an extension of them, no siree Bob! Just as, umm, there wasn't from terror suspects to suspected drug dealers. While I do know, as has been impressed upon me, that slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies, am I allowed to insist upon the exisetnce of slippery slopes, or as Bernard Levin called it, the Fallacy of Altered Standpoints? One we've taken the first grossly illiberal step, it is not necessary that we take the next, but it is easier? Comments (4)
Wedge Entry Points
written by Tony Hollick, April 26, 2008 "Slippery Slopes" may be a logical fallacy (although a very useful one in politics). A more accurate description which catches the heuristic of such measures is: "Wedge Entry Point." Politicians know that the first step is to establish a precedent that "no-one can possibly disagree with." Embedded in this measure will be a logic that permits an indefinite extension. Ferinstance: Up to 14 years ago, there were no laws against possessing "kiddie porn." Yet here was this growing Internet with all these private messages that were going unread by the "authorities." Now it's an old adage that to censor for _anything_ requires the power to examine _anything_ and _everything_. So the trick was, to find _something_, _anything_ that no politician in his or her right mind would dare to oppose. Home Secretary Michael Howard had just the thing: "Kiddie Porn." This had the great advantage, that since almost no-one had ever seen any, the popular imagination could be inflamed into believing almost anything. What was even better was that this could be an absolute offence. You could be convicted for possession even though you had no knowledge of it (a little like witchcraft in the bad old days). Better yet, you could be convicted and sentenced without the evidence ever becoming available for public scrutiny. Best of all, the police and the "security services" could go trawling through everyone's Internet taffic and even their computers in search of the benighted images. And -- guess what -- they could gather all sorts of useful information on the way. In the USA, academic surveys show that up to 80% of the "Kiddie Porn" sites are operated or controlled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. And you most surely would _not_ want to go to prison in the US for anything, let alone a "sex offence." This gives the FBI enormous leverage over those it catches in its 'honey-pot' stings. Well, Michael Howard's "law" flew through Parliament (not surprisingly, when you recall that children at the Kincora Boys' Home were used as 'bait' to entrap politicians). And a Wedge Entry Point was established which could be extended indefinitely. "Well, you wouldn't be objecting to "Kiddie Porn" laws, would you?" Nooooo..... So the prospect of "the authorities" finding a Botticelli angel on your hard drive (or any other members of the Angelic Host, for that matter) strikes fear into the hearts of men (and women) everywhere. Indeed, even entirely synthetic images are prohibited. That is, _completely unreal_ images. And 'planting' such images on anyone's computer via the Internet is simplicity itself. "But I never knew they were there!" Doesn't matter. Absolute offence. Like drugs. And... I prefer Alfred Tarski's logic. And the abolition of victimless "crimes." While we still have any freedom left. Tony Hollick
Slippery Slopes Abound written by Tony Hollick, April 28, 2008
Thanks for asking!
I was introduced to Alfred Tarski's work by Bryan Magee, Karl Popper and Jeremy Shearmur. Here is an excellent short overview of Tarski's work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Tarski The particular example I had in mind was Tarski's Correspondence Theory of Truth utilizing a metalanguage. An illustration: "The statement 'le ciel est bleu' is true if -- and only if -- the sky is in fact blue." The words "ciel" and "bleu" can be described with any necessary degree of precision. "Ciel" can be defined as that layer of the atmosphere which includes oxygen atoms "Bleu" can be defined as light of a particular frequency range which appears to people as blue. Rayleigh scattering of sunlight by oxygen atoms causes the sky to appear blue. Leonardo da Vinci spent his entire life trying to find the answer to this question; along with: "Why do children look like their parents?" (Answer: genes); and "Why do people grow old and die?" (Answer: the Hayflick limit on the availability of telomeres in the chromosomal division during the renewal of cells). Using Tarski's correspondence theory, properties of slippery slopes can be described accurately. Regards, Tony Hollick Write comment
This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comment.
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Also, many countries that suffer from being kept under the thumbs by drug dealers see the slippery slope having started when these criminals were awarded and guaranteed exactly the same procedural rights as any law abiding citizen. It is not that I do not partly agree with your comment, but let us not forget that life is not really that clear-cut because that would really place us on the mother of all slippery slopes.