Good on you, Judge Roy Anderson: [news.bbc.co.uk]

Anti-social behaviour orders have been trumpeted by the government as the answer to society’s loss of respect. But is there a danger they will instead be used to curb its freedoms?

Civil liberties campaigners are celebrating after a district judge refused to impose an Asbo on a 63-year-old peace protester.

The Ministry of Defence Police Agency (MDPA) had sought an order banning Lindis Percy from an area around a secret American base in North Yorkshire. [ie: Menwith Hill NSA Listening Base, ed.]

But District Judge Roy Anderson instead ruled he was firmly against Asbos being used as “a club to beat down the expression of legitimate comment”.

The powers were intended to tackle “oafish behaviour”, he said, not Mrs Percy’s non-aggressive protests.

She was, however, placed under an eight-week curfew and is thought to be the first peace protester to be electronically tagged – a sentence she intends to appeal.

It was based on her conviction on four counts of obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty and one of obstructing the highway at the Menwith Hill base.

Leaving Harrogate Magistrates’ Court, Mrs Percy described the attempt to impose an Asbo on her as “an abuse of the legislation”.

…etc, go read the rest.

I despair of the rise of regulation-over-legislation in Britain – it’s a cheap political tactic of the form:

1. Person wants to engage in [some activity]
2. In order to perform in [such activity] you require [license for activity]
3. In order to receive [license for activity] you require [payment of dues] (fair enough, call them taxes) / [membership of organisation] (umm, well, maybe) / [adherence to arbitrary set of non-legislative rules] (err, this has possibility for abuse)

…or in the case of ASBOs:

1. Authority wants you to refrain from [some activity]
2. Authority defines [those activities] in an ASBO
3. Breach of ASBO is a criminal offence although what is defined in the ASBO for other people may not constitute such, putting the police in the potential position of having proved some triviality occured, now criminalised by virtue of who did it rather than what was done.

In short, it’s a law for the individual, it can get you banged-up, and I suspect it will implicitly carry a strong presumption against the individual because if they didn’t do that sort of thing, the ASBO wouldn’t have been applied, wouldn’t it?

I usually get in trouble with people – especially lawyer and police friends – whenever I poke my nose into human rights; I still remember being rounded upon (“You don’t understand!”) by a criminologist friend for my expressing support of Britain joining the ECHR (pdf) – my apparently acceptable response to which was that I didn’t need to have delved into every ramification of the convention in order to approve of giving people the potential to defend their freedoms from a position of strength, rather than merely there’s no law to prevent me doing this! – the latter rebuttal being easily solved by those in authority.

It’s a problem that the Americans got right years ago but now seem hellbent on undoing.

Re-reading what I’ve written above, those amongst my friends who are now – or in 30 years time shall be – readers of the Daily Mail – are free to take cheap pot-shots of the form “So, you don’t think people should need to take tests to obtain driving licenses, then?”

Actually, I do believe people should do driving tests, to develop and prove a skill; what I dislike is the rise of the tactic of regulation.

For instance, this is how I think a “voluntary” identity card will work:

• Getting a UK Identity Card is entirely voluntary.
• Want social security payments? You’ll need an identity card.
• Want to get update your passport? You’ll need an identity card.
• Want to prove you’re over 18 in a pub? You’ll need an identity card.
• Want a mortgage? “We’ll need to see your identity card, please.”

…and so forth; nothing compels you to receive benefits, go on vacation, buy beer or get a house. Likewise, not much guarantees you the freedom to do them. But eventually, I suspect, if you want to do (some of?) those things, you’ll need an identity card – and they’re voluntary, you know.