Category Archives: rights

Great Britain and its EU Referendum

Posted on by
Reply

Chris Deerin, writing for CapX, has an article titled England will be torn apart by the EU referendum. The setup is this: Prime Minister David Cameron promised a few years ago that were he reelected Prime Minister (i.e., were his party reelected to sufficient strength that it could at least form a coalition government and he selected Prime Minister), he’d hold a Great Britain-wide referendum by the end of 2017 on whether Great Britain should leave the European Union. In the event, Cameron’s party was reelected to an outright majority, he was selected to be Prime Minister, and he’s moving to keep his promise: Great Britain will hold the promised referendum by the promised deadline.

Deerin is concerned, as you might discern from his article’s title. Actually holding the referendum, he fears, will mean the end of Great Britain regardless of the outcome.

Below is a letter I wrote to CapX demurring from Deerin’s position.

I don’t share your concern for a couple of reasons. In no particular order: what the pols in London think isn’t particularly relevant (Cameron has no plan, by the way? Not so much: he made a promise, and he intends to keep it; that his party has changed, or is changing, its collective mind isn’t important to honoring a commitment.) The question is for individual Brits: how do they see themselves? Your existential question, indeed: who are they?

Second, say the referendum does rend Great Britain. That works out to Scottish independence, no small matter to a significant per centage of Scots.

Third, consider the alternative: no referendum, and Great Britain stays in the EU. Our own John Jay expressed concern during the ratification debates that were our Constitution accepted as it was written, the States would bear the same relationship to the central government that counties have to a State: just political subdivisions that exist solely to ease the carrying out of the State’s decisions. That’ll be the fate of Great Britain if there’s no referendum or if the referendum supports staying in the EU.

Finally, dissolution: the recently completed referendum on Scottish departure from the Union was most enthusiastically argued. There is considerable angst among those whose position was voted down. They’re recovering, and the Union remains sound.

So it will be with Great Britain following the larger referendum, regardless of its outcome. Except that voting to leave will be a stout blow for British liberty.

Eric Hines

Russia’s New Gulag

Posted on by
Reply

…is on the verge of becoming the whole nation.

Russia’s media watchdog [Roskomnadzor, a government agency] has written to Google, Twitter and Facebook warning them against violating Russian Internet laws and a spokesman said on Thursday they risk being blocked if they do not comply with the rules.

Carefully crafted rules: the three companies encrypt their transmissions, which means the Russian government can’t tell who’s saying all those nasty things about Putin and his fellows in that government.

To comply with the law, the three firms must hand over data on Russian bloggers with more than 3,000 readers per day, and take down websites that Roskomnadzor sees as containing calls for “unsanctioned protests and unrest[.]”

This is “free” speech and rule by law in action, Russian style.

NSA, Bulk Collection, and Security

Posted on by
Reply

For now, there is no bill extending in any form the NSA’s ability to bulk collect metadata about our telephone calls. The House-passed bill that would have kept those data in phone company possession and NSA-searchable under explicit court order failed in the Senate Friday, as did any effort to extend the existing capability, for any duration. At this point, the House and Senate are in Memorial Day recess and won’t return until the 31st. With the collection authority expiring on 1 June, that leaves the House and Senate only a few hours to figure something out or leave the thing expired.

Senator and Presidential Candidate Rand Paul (R, KY) said in the aftermath,

We should never give up our rights for a false sense of security. This is only the beginning—the first step of many. I will continue to do all I can until this illegal government spying program is put to an end, once and for all.

For all his braggadocio, Paul is right on the essence of this.

There is, and there always will be, creep; there is always expansion of government power, if not authority, no matter the good intentions for the original expansion. The best place to draw the line against further creep, the only effective place to draw the line, is at zero. The Constitution has transferred to government all the fraction of our liberty necessary; there need be no further transfer.

We can have security by giving up (some more) liberty? No. There is no security at all without liberty. The House-passed bill would have been a suitable intermediate step in winding down the bulk collection, and it should have been passed: a sudden disruption of the NSA’s necessary intelligence gathering can be dangerous. At best, though, it should have been taken as only that, and additional measures taken to complete the winding down.

Update: An earlier version of this post foolishly referred to Senator Paul as “Ron.”  That error has been corrected.

Another Judge Gets It Right on Guns

Posted on by
Reply

People in the nation’s capital no longer have to show a good reason to get a permit to carry concealed handguns outside their homes and businesses.

The District of Columbia’s police chief said Tuesday that she’s dropping this requirement, a centerpiece of the city’s handgun-control legislation, after a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction against it.

That’s entirely appropriate since government does not get to dictate the reasons for a man owning a gun.

The city’s law, one of the nation’s toughest, says a person must show a “good reason to fear injury to his or her person or property” or another “proper reason for carrying a pistol” to get a concealed-carry permit.

Balance that against the 2nd Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Try as I might, I can’t find anything in that Amendment, neither clause nor syllable, that says “agreeable with reasons approved by the government.”

What’s in Your Food?

Posted on by
Reply

It’s not PC to ask or to know, according to the World Trade Organization.

The World Trade Organization (WTO) just ruled that America’s popular country-of-origin labeling law (COOL) enacted in 2008 violates global trade standards because it erects a trade barrier to US meat imports from countries like Canada and Mexico.

Japanese customers don’t get to know that the beef they’re thinking about buying came from the US. Nor do PRC diners. Nor do American customers get to know that their beef is coming from Canada.

Such knowledge constitutes a trade barrier, don’t you know.

What’s next? WTO ruling that food labeling generally is illegal? After all, if the food is known to be not halal or kosher, Jews and Muslims might not buy the food. Trade barrier.