The Importance of Being Allowed to Be a Pest

Two related stories: Boing Boing reports here on the arrest and alleged beating of the Canadian sf writer Peter Watts by US border guards, while The Guardian has video taken by one of its photographers challenging security guards, police officers and Special Branch about his right to film in a public place.
Of course, I don't know what happened in Dr Watts's case, but you can read his account, which seems plausible enough, here. If you're minded to, you can donate to his likely legal expenses here under the Niblet Memorial Kibble Fund.
In the case of The Guardian's reporter, he was clearly trying to challenge and test the response of the authorities, who seem, on the basis of the film, to have behaved reasonably well (ie, they didn't beat him up, or contradict his assertion of his legal position). That makes him sound like a bit of a pain for them, as he no doubt was. I think it's quite likely that Dr Watts seemed a bit of a pain to the US border guards. Hardly a justification for assaulting him, though.
What the commentators questioning both men on the various comment groups, blogs, twitter & so on seem to have forgotten is that they have not only a cast-iron right to stand their ground, however awkward & unreasonable that may make them seem to the authorities, but – I would argue – a duty to do so, which we all share.
If any illiberal law creates a restriction, whether it is access to sites where it is allowable to protest or report, or the right to behave in any other way (dance, smoke, drink alcohol, create public art, assemble in public) is introduced, you should complain loudly. But you should also make a point of challenging authority when you are, entirely within your rights, challenged for doing those same things one foot on the other side of line.
It makes you feel as if you are being unreasonable. You are not. You are defending the line which legislation (even legislation of which you disapprove) has drawn. That is supposed to protect your rights. To make sure it does, you must stand up for them, even at the cost of being thought a pain by those charged with enforcing these rules. Only when they are clear on how far they may or may not go will this sort of abuse be halted.
If it turns out that Peter Watts's account is accurate, I hope those who arrested and struck him are charged with assault. In the case of the Guardian's man, I hope it makes the British authorities realise how stupid that particular anti-terrorist legislation is.

Failing terrorism and liberty

A man on the BBC has just described the assault on Glasgow Airport and the car bombs in London as "failed terrorist attacks". Well, we can be grateful that no one has been killed; since my parents are flying from Glasgow (where I grew up) this morning, I'm very glad that worse hasn't happened.
But I'm not sure about "failed". All terrorist attacks succeed at some level, in that they inculcate fear, or merely inconvenience, or – which I think may be the worst of all – encourage damaging restrictions on freedom. And they need only win once. Try again, fail again, fail better can be anybody's maxim.
I had lunch the other day with Farah Mendlesohn, who edited an excellent collection of short stories called Glorifying Terrorism, for which, declaring an interest, I wrote the introduction. Each of the stories attempted to break the law introduced in Britain to prevent anything which "could be interpreted" – and, mind you, by anyone – as glorifying terrorism. This is precisely the sort of damage terrorism leads to and it is, in its own way, as corrosive as the initial attacks themselves.
What will it profit us if we fight off the advocates of the Caliphate and sharia law by introducing legislation which approximates the constraints on liberty they want?
Farah says there are very few copies left. You can get them here.
Damian Thompson, on his Telegraph blog, draws attention to another consequence of terrorism, and the Muslim Council's pre-emptive attempts to (commendably) discourage reprisals, or (moronically and cravenly) avoid issuing the obvious condemnation. That consequence can only be called sheer blithering idiocy.