The feedback loop of fear

There's been some talk in the media about us getting another bank holiday each year. But for what reason? To commemorate the founding of the NHS, suggest some. How about Remembrance Day, say others. Or St George's Day and others.

I'd like to suggest Counter-Terrorism Bill Day. These bills come round with frightening regularity (much more so than terrorist atrocities) so it seems only right we should mark the day each year.

That way, all of us can sit around in our pyjamas and wallow in the mendacity, sophistry and stupidity wheeled out by the Home Secretary of the day with which to defend his or her case for further authoritarianism. We can relax and reflect upon the contribution made by the people who have made this country the freak of the civilised world it is today. Us bloggers could just change the date on the same blog post and republish it annually - the arguments never seem to change, after all.

Who, for instance, has had the time to luxuriate in Jacqui Smith's squirming and squirm-inducing appearance (RealPlayer required) on Radio 4's Today programme this morning? Hardly any of us will have had the time to revel in the hearty yet bitter and scornful laughter that her performance deserved.

She couldn't or wouldn't answer the question of why she wants 42 as the number of days the police can hold a person suspected of terrorism. Even a child could tell you that that figure was arrived at by a thought process no more sophisticated or analytical than haggling. The government, for reasons they can't or won't explain, want a higher number but know they won't get it. They've gone high to lure their opponents away from their lower figure. Any move upward away from 28 days is a victory for the government - they're that little bit closer to their magic number and get to portray the rest of us as appeasers of terrorists. Which is a hell of a lot of people when you see the simply massive coalition of opposition ranged against the government on this.

And how about this feat of rhetorical contortionism at the 3m 30s mark in the interview:

Jacqui Smith: If in the future, in exceptional circumstances, a case could be made that there is an operation, an investigation, a number of multiple plots, a really difficult situation in which the police and Director of Public Proscecutions want to be able to apply to a judge to decide whether or not they could hold somebody for longer, that we need to find a way to facilitate that in those circumstances.

Sarah Montague Carolyn Quinn: If that's not a hypothetical case, then what is?

Jacqui Smith: It won't be hypothetical if and when it occurs, that's precisely the point. We are not legislating now on the basis that we're bringing it in now for something that might happen in the future. We're putting in a provision for if it becomes unhypothetical. If unfortunately I and many other experts and right and we do need it in the future it is in place in legislation.

Listen for Sarah Montague Carolyn Quinn laughing. We're not legislating against the hypothetical, we're legislating against the hypothetical becoming 'unhypothetical'. I think. 'Unhypothetical' is not a real word incidentally. Smith is quite literally making it up as she goes.

How about this from, not-all-scare-mongering Home Office minister Tony McNulty:

As an extreme example, imagine two or three 9/11s. Imagine two 7/7/s. Given the evidence we've got and the nature of plots so far disrupted, such scenarios aren't fanciful.

Imagine, imagine, imagine a story. Where are these plots? Where's the evidence? The government and police haven't been shy in coming forward when they've discovered these plots in the past (even if most of them turned out to be unfeasible bollocks dreamt up by halfwits and the deluded).

If, if, if, if, if. Take a look at a dictionary definition of 'if' and tell me if that isn't a word firmly rooted in the hypothetical. 'The rules of the game have changed,' Tony Blair famously said. He was right, not least in the underpinnings of how the English language actually function.

Forty two days. Six weeks. Does anybody have a job with a holiday entitlement that runs that long or a boss willing to hold your job open for such a time? What about a bank manager or creditor whose patience will run to that? And you must have heard of Parkinson's Law by now. We are, need it be stressed, talking about locking up people who are suspects. You know, that quaint concept of innocent before proven guilty? Prefixing 'suspect' with 'terrorist' is merely an attempt at implying guilt where it may or may not exist in order to plant a prejudgement in the public consciousness. Nobody gets locked up for six weeks if they're innocent, do they?

And it continues to get worse. According to The Guardian:

The detailed legislation is expected to be tougher than originally trailed, with no legal definition of the seriousness of the alleged offence that could trigger an exceptional period of detention beyond the current 28 days without charge.

They can't even tell us exactly what they want to lock people up for. Sure, we're clinging onto the values that we hold dear in the face of implacable terrorism. It's just that these values seem to be from the 12th century or thereabouts. Why not just throw Muslims in a pond and see if they float? Talk about sinking to Osama's level.

I've said this before but most people in Britain will roll along with this due to a failure of imagination. They cannot picture themselves falling victim to these laws. They think these laws are designed to trap unknowable, generally brown-skinned, cranks and murderers and not used against nice Christian white people. That may or may not be true, if you've never heckled a political rally or read aloud the names of the dead at the cenotaph, but the lack of empathy for others still has the power to disgust even a cynic like me. The innocent get released without the fanfare of their arrest, so we don't have to feel too bad.

All this would be (slightly) easier to swallow if we were treated as having any degree of intelligence. You have to come to the conclusion that the government's argument can't be put in any other way than patronising illogicality because it falls apart when subjected to even the most cursory of intelligent scrutiny. So, it's got to be hyperbole and stonewalling, obfuscation and contempt, and all the other ingredients needed to make the laughing stock palatable.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Home Office had a cage full of Sun readers and X-Factor viewers who every policy has to be run past before publication. If the proposed legislation doesn't cause the subjects to shit themselves in terror and bash their screaming heads against the bars then it has to be reworded until it does.

What a day it will be when a government minister can sit down and talk to us like we weren't dropped on our heads as children. An adult debate held between adults with at least an attempt at mutual respect. That'd be worth a bank holiday.