State Primary School now dictating how children should walk

Denver-Public-Schools-Buck-Trend-Plug-School-to-Prison-Pipeline--0CykNO

A primary school in central London has announced that children must walk through corridors with their hands clasped behind their backs to “go shine in the world” (the school’s motto).

New headteacher of St George the Martyr primary school, Angela Abrahams, introduced the rule, known as the “university walk” to “strengthen pupil safety, further raise the aspirations of pupils and to maximise learning time“.

Parents in opposition to the rule have created a petition in response, arguing that it is “too dictatorial, too restrictive and very repressive“. Carly Taylor, mother of three, claimed: “hands behind the backs is associated with a loss of liberty and lack of trust”.
For many years, state schools have been compared to prisons. Critics highlight harsh punishments, strict dress codes, poor food quality and numerous surveillance cameras, as just a few examples of how schools are similar to prisons. The “university walk” rule undoubtedly gives merit to the comparison. The image of children being forced to walk with their hands clasped behind backs between lessons, would look very similar to that of prisoners being forced to walk with their hands cuffed behind their backs between jail cells.

Reverend Guy Pope, the school’s chairman, backed the rule, stating that “it is helping to make sure children arrive in class in the best possible frame of mind for learning, in a calm and ordered manner”. Unbelievably, Pope also claimed that “parents are not looking after the best interests of their children“.

rothbardThe quote is sure to have Murray Rothbard spinning furiously in his grave. In his book Education: Free and Compulsory, Rothbard argued that the key question in the education discussion is simply: should the parent or the state be the overseer of the child?

As parents are the literal producers of the child, it is obvious that they have the most intimate relationship with the child, therefore the parents are the ones most invested in the child’s personality and development. The state, on the other hand, has little regard for the child’s rights and individual personality, instead teaching uniformity, conformity and obedience, which this new rule is a perfect example of.

UK Government announces “Most Intrusive Surveillance Regime in the West”

internet-surveillance

The UK government have announced a new bill which expands surveillance powers, this time named the ‘Investigatory Powers Bill’ (IP Bill). The IP Bill requires internet providers to record the browsing history of every single person in the UK for up to a whole year. This information will be accessible by the police and security services, who will also have access to see the apps that people have used on their smartphones and tablet devices, and when they used them. The bill will also give police and security services new powers to hack into devices and networks.

The government claims that local authorities will not have access to the data, and only the websites visited will be recorded, not individual pages within the site. Further details about browser history can be requested by police and security services, but this requires Home Secretary’s approval.

Theresa_May_9670221_217757cIn defence of her bill, Theresa May argued that current laws on online surveillance were out-dated, and needed to be
modernised. She stated: “I am clear we need to update our legislation to ensure it is modern, fit for purpose and can respond to emerging threats as technology advances.” In addition, she argued that some websites have become “safe havens” for terrorists and serious criminals.

The Labour party pledged support for the bill, with shadow home secretary Andy Burnham claiming that the “safety of constituents” were more important than “party politics”. However, the Lib Dems, who tend to be the only party that defend civil liberties, are more sceptical. When in coalition government, they blocked a similar bill dubbed the ‘snooper’s charter’, and Nick Clegg has questioned whether there are flaws “under the bonnet” of the new legislation.

The government also plans to prohibit end-to-end encryption, which is the technology used by popular chats such as WhatsApp and Apple’s iMessage. But founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, has lambasted the plan, arguing that attempts to ban end-to-end encryption is “like trying to ban math, it’s just not going to happen.” He continued, claiming that “governments don’t understand technology very well” and encouraged Apple to stop selling iPhones in the UK if the law goes ahead.

Unsurprisingly, notorious whistleblower Edward Snowden, has come out in opposition to the bill. According to Snowden, the IP Bill legitimises mass surveillance, and is “the most intrusive and least accountable surveillance regime in the West.” He pointed out that even just the logging of an IP address can be enough to deduce private information about an individual. It is important to note that the proposed level of online monitoring in the UK is illegal in the US, Canada and many European countries.

Why People Don’t Vote

general-election

The General election is fast approaching, which means that it’s time for people to decide who to vote for. It is generally accepted that voting is an important part of a functioning democracy, nevertheless there are many people who don’t partake in voting – just 65% turned out to vote in 2010. Why is this the case? There are many different reasons, one is simply because people are badly informed – they can’t name candidates that are running, they are unaware of the massive effects that government policy has on their lives, and they are generally apathetic towards politics.

Barack Obama recently proposed the idea of compulsory voting in order to fix this problem, however not only does this violate freedom of speech (freedom of speech includes the freedom to not speak), but also the idea that you can create a well-informed public by simply forcing them to vote is absurd. Surely it should be the job of politicians to rouse people from their apathy by giving them something to vote for, by having strong set of principles and by addressing the major issues that people are going to agree with. Forcing people to vote sounds like something that would occur in North Korea (which it actually does) or the Soviet Union, not in the ‘free world’.

So, why do people care so little about politics? Well, it could be argued that it is completely rational to be ignorant of politics. The fact is, it takes a lot of time to become well-informed. You have to spend time following the news either by reading a newspaper, reading online or watching the news, or ideally all of these things. The time spent following politics could be spent doing other thing that are more productive, joyful and important to your own personal life, such as family and career. That is not to say that becoming politically aware is a bad thing, however some people simply have more important things to worry about. They see politics as an annoying hindrance rather than something that is beneficial. Fundamentally there is an incentive problem with voting. The chance that your vote will change the outcome of an election is practically zero, and the political process has done little more than leave people frustrated.

But it’s not just badly informed people who don’t vote. There are many well-informed people who choose not to vote. They recognise that government performance has simply not improved by voting in different parties. Whether it has been the Labour party or the Conservative party in power, the problems are still the same. The warfare-welfare state continues to grow and our civil liberties are being eroded. Politicians remain untrustworthy, with a consistently bad record of lying, false promises and manipulation. Nick Clegg lied about tuition fees. The Labour party initiated NHS privatisation and expanded the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Public spending increased in both Margaret Thatcher’s and David Cameron’s Conservative governments. What we constantly see is a pattern of the opposite outcomes of what each were elected to do.

So there are many valid and rational reasons why people don’t vote. That is not to say voting is completely useless. If you see a candidate that you genuinely agree with, vote for them. However don’t be surprised when they change their policies if they come to power. Though, it’s not all bad; at the moment UK politics is becoming a multi-party system, rather than a two-party system. This could potentially be good for democracy, with more options of who to vote for, maybe we will see an increase in voter turnout in this year’s election.