Black holes and the collapse of democracy

Last night I watched a Horizon programme about black holes. Experts don't understand them, and every galaxy has a giant one in the middle, weighing typically 0.1% of the mass of its host. Nothing can escape it as it continually collapses, and at its heart is a singularity where all the normal rules break down. Anything can happen at the centre; nothing is impossible.

And then I saw the ten o'clock news. The President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, with the unhappy face of a Neville Chamberlain, had caved in and signed the Lisbon Treaty, the enabling legislation that takes Europe over the event horizon and towards "ever-closer union". Klaus wrote to his country's constitutional court:

“Twenty years after the restoration of our democracy and sovereignty, we are once again dealing with the question whether we should — this time voluntarily — give up the position of a sovereign state and hand over decision-making on our own matters to European institutions outside of the democratic control of our citizens.”

And so the millennarian (it had been planned to be complete by 2000) madness sweeps another into the host. At the centre, now irrecoverably detached from the rest of the universe, the club gathers, surrounded by advisers and servants of every kind, all determined to live as high and as absurd as Marie Antoinette tending her washed sheep, as we career chaotically towards economic breakdown and the loss of law, freedom and security. The transfer of wealth and power without consent - without our consent - is crime and tyranny.

Centripetal forces create centrifugal forces. The overweening power-seeking of the mediaeval Papacy hastened the move towards a Europe of sovereign states and religious fraction. Now, the forced bureaucratic union at the top of our group of societies will lead to greater disunion lower down, of which the BNP's Nick Griffin is merely a small, scruffy symptom.

In the middle ages, the walled towns developed internally; there sprang up strong-walled houses for the wealthy elite, to protect themselves not only from each other, but from the desperate, hungry, half-naked mob outside.

In the dream is denial, and in denial is defeat.

The terrorist state comes closer

No2ID has put a full-page ad in The Spectator (p.47) saying that the Home Office plans to make issuing your next passport conditional on your agreeing to be on their super-database.

Wikipedia says, "All British passports are issued in the exercise of discretion by Her Majesty's Government under the Royal Prerogative. In any event, discretion must be exercised reasonably and not on a whim, and even though there is no statute governing the issue of passports, such prerogative powers are susceptible to the normal processes of judicial review (Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374)."

I've read somewhere that there was a time when the British could travel abroad without a passport. And according to "Stiggy" on the No2ID message board, it's still legal to do so - I'd be interested to know if this is so, and how it could be done.

He who pays the piper calls the tune

A couple of stories catch my eye:

China is requiring new PCs to come with factory-installed Internet filters (don't tell our government)...

... and may be buying American military secrets from the US Government (I believe I suggested this as a possible development quite some time ago, but I'm still looking for the reference.)

That sinking feeling

(Big figure )
(Little figure)

Brown's Britain: we can shut down your life

htp: Paddington

Harriet Harman declares the end of the rule of law in the UK

Discussing the pension rights of ex-RBS boss Sir Fred Goodwin, Harriet Harman, Leader of the House of Commons, said today:

"The Prime Minister has said it is not acceptable and therefore it will not be accepted. It might be enforceable in a court of law this contract but it's not enforceable in the court of public opinion and that's where the Government steps in."

I propose a plebiscite to dispossess Harriet Harman of all her worldly goods, and exile her permanently from this country. A "yes" vote will have no legal force, but clearly that does not matter, provided it is supported by public opinion.

Is it officially permissible to be a Christian? Or indeed, anything?

Here in the Daily Mail is a sample of the hoo-ha about nurse Caroline Petrie, who was suspended for offering to pray for an elderly patient. (She also used to leave a mildly evangelical Christian pamphlet.) The patient says, "I have Christian beliefs myself, but it could perhaps be upsetting for some other people if they have different beliefs or thought that she meant they looked in such a bad way that they needed praying for."

Both parties seem reasonable and decent. What's worrying is what happens when officialdom gets involved, as the rest of the story shows.

But I'd love to see a Philadelphia lawyer let loose on the "Nursing and Midwifery Council code" (full text here) which Mrs Petrie is deemed to have breached. By implication, this code regulates not merely conduct, but opinions and even religious faith.

The code commands nurses to "Be open and honest, act with integrity" and straightaway gives a very contentious clarification of the term "integrity": "You must demonstrate a personal and professional commitment to equality and diversity." The managers at the health organisation for which Mrs Petrie works clearly understand "equality and diversity" to cover religions. The logic of this is that Jews, Muslims and Christians (among others) cannot work as nurses - for note the word "personal" in that order. It may be that atheists would also be precluded.

All this results from two things: the State getting too big for its boots; and in attempting to govern every aspect of our lives has delegated insanely wide-ranging powers to quangos, who make and apply rules with a whim of iron. The professions and semi-professions - doctors, teachers, nurses and so on* - all have their own little councils to terrorise them. Such prodnosing easily magnifies a "storm in a teacup" into an issue that could affect your job, wealth, family life and physical liberty.

We need a Constitution to limit the powers of would-be tyrants, even if they are now soft-handed, well-dressed ones. Resist the Red Armani Choir.
_______________________
* ... even foster parents.

Civil liberties in Britain further eroded

Taking a photograph of a public servant, even if it's to record his wrongdoing, is to be illegal. That's if the photograph is 'likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism'. How could you prove it wasn't?

Nazi comparisons are horrid cliches; yet my mother watched Nazism take hold as she grew up in rural East Prussia. Tyranny advances step by step, and one of its most useful allies is a natural disinclination to believe where it is heading.

Another ally of the tyrant is woolly language used in law - the freedom of the individual is in the precision of the language that grants powers to his incomparably mightier government.

Presumed Consent revisited

Most of us know by now that the government wants to increase rates of organ donation by assuming the right to our bodies the moment we cease to breathe, unless we opt-out of their grisly clutches. Jimmy Young in the Sunday Express notes the failure of such schemes in Brazil and France, for example.

My wife points out that in England, it has always been the law that the body of the deceased belongs to the next of kin. Or has that gone by the board since the EU abolished our country's sovereign right to make its own law?

What has happened to the Common Law, Natural Justice, The Reasonable Man and the long, bloodily-won fight to assert the Englishman's rights against the overweening powers of the State?

And will these things have to be re-won by bloody resistance, one day?