#Ferguson, a town in Missouri

There is no doubt that we have seen the worse of many people in this Ferguson case.

Both the city police, the county police, the county judiciary had done what they have supposed not to do. On the other hand, the politicians in the county have been clueless just like the people (who have generally from outside Ferguson) who think that destroying the city is a good way to further their cause. When someone is destroying every business in a place like Ferguson, how would this bring a better life to the people there?

But the problem is not only in Ferguson. In a place like Chicago, there is an enormous amount of violence. Teens get injured or killed almost every day in Chicago. The vast majority of the victims are African Americans and yet you see little coverage in the national media on this. Sadly, could we say that cases like that only have media coverage when they are between people who have different skin colour? Because it’s agreeable that this is a real problem, but it’s also good for sensationalism and to have good ratings.

And yet, people from aboard should refrain to judge too much the situation in the US. In the UK, in France, and even in Sweden, there are cases like the one in Ferguson. There were riots in the last few years in all those places because of similar events like in Ferguson. One can think of the violent riots in France in 2005 who started because a young man was killed by a policeman in France.

What could be done?

In the short term, to put a video camera on policemen would be a good option.

In the more long term, however, I find that ending the war on drugs could be the only good way that minorities in the US have a better life. Less Americans should be detained, and especially considering that African Americans are over-represented in jails all over America. A great number of those offences are related to drugs. This would be a good starting point.

The UKIP pope?

I am a Catholic. I went to Catholic School from kindergarten to the end of high school. Many Catholic I know have a love-hate relationship with the Church, as even if they go to churches often, they see the Catholic church as one major reason why they are so prosperous today. Let’s remember that for centuries, the Church had done massive things in education, healthcare and charity.

But with time, I became close to being a lapsed Catholic – or if you want a Catholic by tradition. The fact that the church had difficulty reforming, that it accepted for a long time that it was fine abusing children all were examples that made me found the Church toxic.

Having seen him in person, Jean-Paul II was a good pope, mainly because he fought communism and was a massive symbol in Poland against the Stalinist-like dictatorship.

Unlike many people, I was lukewarm with Francis as a pope. He didn’t inspire me much.

Two things that he have done lately had made me change my mind:

The fact that he was the first pope to do a formal outreach to people who are autistic is a splendid initiative. I am autistic and it’s a good start that the Church stops living in the darkness in this subject.

The second thing is the speech he made lately to the European Union. He was incredible. Why? Because he used his position and the quasi-immunity associated with it to piss everyone off. Very few could do that – and he did it in a great matter.

Rather than have a nice little speech saying that everybody is nice and happy and full of platitudes, Francis was able to be critical of the European Union as an institution saying it was bureaucratic and out of touch with the people. This is not unlike the popular opinion of many in Italy and in other European countries.

And yet, as much as the Vatican is also bureaucratic and out of touch with the people, possibly because of his non-European background, Francis was able to reinvigorate the debate on the role, the policies and the powers of the European Union.

This is why that perhaps the UKIP pope will be an interesting pope. It’s still too early to see where he is going, but Francis will be an interesting pope – this is certain.

A Warning about the Snoopers Charter

Forget her passage on the Desert Island Disks, Theresa May had made the headlines lately.

As Home Secretary, Mrs. May have proposed that police and security services will get new powers as the UK faces a terror threat « perhaps greater than it has ever been ».

She also says in a that the  »UK is engaged in a struggle that will go on for many years ».

A panoply of measures was then put on the table from  »counter-radicalization measures » to  »forcing firms to hand details to police identifying who was using a computer or mobile phone at a given time. »

There is no doubt that everyone wants to live in a safe society. But as Benjamin Franklin said centuries ago: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

This is exactly the main problem with these measures, their powers are so immense and the wording is so imprecise that they are easily be overused for purposes other than  »terrorism ». In the US, the NSA  »snooping » case was important in this regard, because it leaded to assumptions that these agencies are beyond the law. It’s very difficult to even know anything about their budgets and operations because it’s classified.

The  »permanent » aspect of these measures also makes it make look like something straight out of a George Orwell book.

It’s not the realm of conspiracy theorists to think that these powers will be sooner or later abused because those working in intelligence are human after all. It could be tempting for only one person to use this data to make damage to a person or an organisation they don’t like. Even if you have  »nothing to hide », this organisation or person could perhaps be you.

Any conservative, liberal or libertarian in Britain, should be wary of these measures, and especially considering that very few people in the mainstream political parties are against those measures.

To see someone like Ed Miliband who is keen on criticizing almost everything the coalition government does having lukewarm opposition to these measures, make it even more chilling.

Why banning extremist literature will only make extremism worse. #ukpoli

Recently, the Home Secretary Theresa May had mentioned that she wanted to make extremist literature illegal. Her goal was even more bizarre, to supposedly combat extremism.

This law is dangerous for many reasons. First of all, what is extremist speech? How do we define it? Who defines it? These are all questions which are too important to be left than to anyone than the reader. The definition of extremism based on one person is not the same as another person. It varies in function of who we are, what we believe in, how we life. One thing is sure, it’s not up to someone at the Home Office to determine what is extremism is in a free society but the reader themselves in their own quest for truth.

What is seen as extremist today could be well be seen as mainstream in a few decades. The best example of this phenomenon in the past is homosexuality or eroticism, which was censored only a few decades ago in Britain. Or being critical of organised religion or the Royal family, as this was seen as a taboo not so long ago in British history. These topics are hardly radical today, but they were seen as very radical (or extremist) not so long ago.

The other problem with banning extremist speech is that the best tool to combat extremism is to know which are people having those views believe in. To know the enemy as the old saying says. A good example is Adolf Hitler’s book called Mein Kampf that he wrote while in prison. As much as this book is xenophobic and anti-Semitic (and banned in Germany for many years), it’s important for anyone to read this book in order to understand this era of human history and the motivations behind the horrors of the Third Reich regime and how someone like Adolf Hitler was able to get so rapidly in power because in part of his own propaganda. The same could be said about any extremist literature. Banning this kind of literature would remove the possibility for people to be able to fight these arguments of extremist people.

Furthermore, like everything which is illegal (like drugs), banning some kinds of texts on the grounds of extremism will create a black market like this was the case in the former Soviet Union with texts which were considered as bourgeois or reactionary. A black market also means that it will associated with shady elements, which is hardly an improvement from today while requiring more and more policing.

But the strangest thing is that for people who are pushing from a smaller state like the British Conservatives, it seems very contradictory to put more policing powers into censorship, especially when this will result in a bigger, more intrusive state. There is no doubt that the case for a smaller state should do done with a respect in individual liberties in order to have a certain consistency. If this is not done, people are right to be skeptical of your intentions and your double standards.

Labour against the working classes, the booze edition

It was only a question of time since the Health Control Freak Lobby and working classes credentials will clash together in the Labour Party. A Labour Party which had become more and more the realm not of working people, but of lobbyists of all sorts.

The fact that Labour is going against the working classes is hardly a new thing. ASBO were invented in order to piss off the working classes.

But seriously, is drinking more than one pint a beer a day is really something this bad? If it makes you more relaxed, or if this is seen as a sort of social ritual, it could have more positives than negatives.

The real hypocrisy is that only politicians (and not real people) have access to subsidized booze. The average Joe must pay tax on booze.

This is the problem with some public health advocates, they think that humans are robots. Humans are imperfect beings, and even if drinking a ton of alcohol everyday is generally not good for your health, people must live a little…

Rochester Blues #ukpoli

First of all, I see British politics as an outsider.

An outsider with ears and eyes.

This is how I see the Thornberry case.

Emily Thornberry was fired from the shadow cabinet, not because of her misstep, but because that Labour has problems with voters that the party had taken for a long time for granted.

Firing Thornberry was an easy, quick way to deal with the problem for a couple of hours.

It was too little, too late for Labour. The way how Ed Miliband reacted to this crisis (I love people who drive White Vans) is a proof that he is clueless about everything.

I, as someone who is autistic, I indeed have some admiration for Ed Miliband, but I am little respect for him after what he had done to his brother.

As much as Tories are depressed right now, Labour is even more depressed. They are very low in the polls considering that the Lib Dems are right now in a coalition with the Tories.

Labour is in trouble in Scotland (where the SNP is eating the left-wing populist vote), in Wales (where their awful NHS management is an handicap to the whole party) and in many places in the North, this while being impossible to have good scores in southern regions.

Even in Outer London, UKIP is a treat. In places like Barking which is a Labour single-party state, UKIP had become the second party.

But the problem is even greater than that, in places like Rotherham and Doncaster, Labour are hardly the party with the new ideas, they are the old clientelistic party machine in place for decades and decades.

And yet, the reason why many Labour party insiders are hating UKIP is that UKIP raise in Labour strongholds is a proof that many Labour voters outside London are hardly liberals. They would rather vote for UKIP than vote for the Greens.

How banning Julien Blanc will only make him stronger

First of all, I must say that I am not a fan of Julien Blanc tactics.

They are degrading, sensationalist and frankly stupid. But he is not the only who use these tactics.

But I agree that for some men who have little confidence (and I know what this is), Blanc seems like a guy who have succeeded. Some kind of magic guru.

The British government is wrong to ban him from the UK mainly because it will put him in a stronger position.

He could use the fact that he was  »banned in the UK » to make it richer and more popular because people are attracted to the  »forbidden » fruit because they think it has special powers.

This is sadly the case with a given situation when people want to ban specific things, they don’t realize the consequences of a ban of a given thing or person, and how it could lead to more problems or unintended consequences.