She remarks in a letter to The Guardian yesterday:

I know of no community in the country that has yet to join the crusade of some in the Conservative party for fewer CCTV cameras.  Quite the reverse.

Actually trying to parse that sentence makes my head hurt.

[Blatently nicked from The Register but I can't resist Jacqui Smith stories]

Well, today a case in the European Court has found that the UK government uses the database in a “blanket and indiscriminate way“  with a “disproportionate interference into private life“.

The case was brought by two people, one of whom was 11 (or 12, depending on which report you read) when charged, but not convicted, of theft.  Holding information on innocent people, the court ruled, carried the “risk of stigmatisation” and that the state had overstepped the mark by retaining the information.

Hopefully the government will now be forced to remove any records for people who were never found guilty of a crime.

Interestingly, the BBC are already scaremongering over the issue, pointing out on their TV news coverage that the man convicted of the murders of several prostitutes in Ipswich, Steve Wright, was caught because his DNA was on the database from a previous conviction for theft.   “If he hadn’t been convicted“, we are warned, “and his profile had been deleted, he might have killed again “.  Shades of “if you haven’t done anything wrong then you’ve nothing to hide” there from the Beeb.

Yet another reason to be glad that we’re in the EU and a chance to hear that phrase that brings joy to the heart;

Jacqui Smith, said she was “disappointed”

Let’s start at the beginning.  Not content with producing legislation to allow citizens to be imprisoned for sizable lengths of time without charge, our current government is also determinedly bringing in new laws with which to prosecute us, even in situations where breaching the law brings no conceivable harm to anyone.

I’m referring of course to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act.  This particularly ill-thought out law makes it illegal to possess certain forms of pornographic imagery, specifically that regarded as extreme.  This category appears to cover certain activities, such as consensual bondage for example, which would be perfectly legal to indulge in personally, as long as you don’t take photos for your friends.  How you find out what publications are extreme or not is also left undefined as one group discovered when they attempted to seek guidance from the police.

Ok, this aside, you may well argue that since it may well be impossible to find out whether the participants of ‘extreme pornography’ are appearing willingly or not, then it is safer to ban it all to protect unwilling participants. The effectiveness of making something illegal and preventing it happening is a debate for another time, but let’s say that you are right and move on.

As well as banning photographs of pornographic activities, the act also is apparently deemed to cover cartoon images, particularly where the participants are underage. How you are supposed to tell whether a cartoon image is responsible enough to engage in sexual activity isn’t specified. What if the figures portrayed look like schoolgirls, but are actually 10,000 year old space vampires? (a situation which I suspect isn’t that unusual in some manga comics)  Should Huey, Dewey, and Louie be protected from Donald Duck?  He does wander around without trousers after all.  In any case, unless groups of starving artists are being imprisoned and forced to draw tentacle monsters then it is difficult to see exactly who such comics are hurting.

By the way, don’t think you’re safe just because you live in the freedom loving US of A.  I suspect Christopher Handley, an Iowa manga fan, might well have thought that the first amendment covered the right to own comics right up until he was recently arrested.  Seems the the post office can open your mail and decide that it’s offensive, using powers gained under the PROTECT act.  Now he faces up to 20 years imprisonment.

But I don’t use pornography or read comics, I hear you cry.  Don’t worry, there are still ways you can get snapped up over here in the UK.  Our old friend Jacqui Smith, also wants to track all your email and phone communications.

Better hope that no-one sends you any Donald Duck cartoons…

Apparently this is to allow the police enough time to gather evidence in cases of suspected terrorist activity, which doesn’t say much for our police force, since everywhere else in the world this takes only a few hours or a few days at most.  I can appreciate that sometimes it can be difficult to press charges of ‘smelling of foreign food‘ and ‘having a beard’ but 42 days?  Even in the 1970s the police could fit people up faster than that.

What is even more frustrating is how close they came to managing to succeed.  This in the country which fought for the right of habeas corpus, the fundamental right of a citizen to know why they are being imprisoned by the state. A right which it seems our elected politicians are now prepared to throw away in order to “protect our freedoms” (I’ll leave you alone to insert your own ironic comment there). This was a right which was dragged from a highly reluctant monarchy hundreds of years ago, and certainly shouldn’t be surrendered lightly.

However, they were blocked in this attempt, for now at least, by an unelected body which originally gained their posts from appointment by that very same monarchy, the House of Lords. I used to feel that the House of Lords was an outdated institution of inherited privilege, but sadly it seems they have become the only thing protecting us from the whims of the people we elected. It is a sad day for democracy.

I say blocked for now, because our delightful home secretary Jacqui Smith has promised to rush through legislation in the future should it be necessary. I really hope that hundreds of year’s worth of legal protection won’t be over-turned on a knee-jerk reaction, but I’m not optimistic. I foresee a convenient scapegoat appearing in the future…