BSI to iPad developers: thou shalt serve the disabled

The Register reports:

A draft British Standard on web accessibility warns organisations to consider how easily disabled users can access their websites on mobile phones, tablets and TVs. Ignoring their needs could breach BS 8878 and the Equality Act, it says.

Standards body BSI has launched a second consultation on 'BS 8878 Web Accessibility – Code of Practice'. It is a non-technical standard that explains how organisations should create policies and production processes to identify and remove barriers that result in websites excluding disabled and elderly people.

A first draft of the Standard was issued in December 2008 and attracted what BSI described as "an unprecedented amount of interest." That draft has been extensively restructured, according to BSI. The latest draft addresses new issues including user-personalisation and dealing with user complaints.

A nine-page annex to the Standard explains the evolving legal duties for websites to be accessible to disabled users. It addresses the Equality Act, which is due to come into force across Great Britain from October, replacing the existing Disability Discrimination Act (DDA). It also addresses the DDA, which will remain in force in Northern Ireland.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: nobody has a right to be served.

Developers should decide for themselves whether to invest additional effort to attract the business of "disabled and elderly people".

For the state to decree that these people must be served, regardless of the cost, and regardless of the interests of the developers, is tantamount to slavery.

Forced labour is always and everywhere immoral, but it is especially offensive when the slaves are forced to provide luxury goods, like iPad-optimised websites (emphasis mine):

The Standard acknowledges that websites, which it refers to as "web products," are increasingly accessed on devices other than desktop computers. But it advises that other devices can introduce challenges for users with disabilities.

"For example, users might wish to access web products via mobile phones, internet tablets, games consoles or televisions," it says. "However, some web products might not be accessible to disabled users of these devices."

There are lots of things I might wish for, but I would never suggest that other people should be compelled to serve my wishes.

Tebbit on small government

Today's post from Norman Tebbit was my favourite to date:

These are early days for a government facing numerous problems, the overwhelming majority of which are not of its own making.
...
Part of the problem is, I believe, that government has grown so big – that it regulates, licenses, forbids, encourages, subsidises, taxes, moralises, employs, delivers services, on such a scale, across such a wide spectrum of society and the economy. It is really hard these days not to be told what to do, or what not to do, by some agency of the State every day of our lives. As ever, those who are sufficiently upset, dissatisfied, or feel short-changed by what government delivers to them are likely to be more vociferous than those left reasonably content.

The result is a near permanent atmosphere of dissatisfaction simply because we all feel bossed around and let down. Mr. Cameron’s plea for “a bigger society and a smaller state” is a rational, even if as yet a shapeless response to this problem.

We need to ask ourselves what are the things which a government must deliver in order for a nation to function effectively because we cannot do them for ourselves, what are the things which it may be able to deliver better than anyone else, and what it should not do.

Initially, Tebbit's prescription sounds a lot like minarchy:

First of all, for a nation to exist and to enjoy the benefits of its homeland territory, its government must be able to defend its borders against any unwelcome intruders. We simply cannot do that for ourselves. It is first the first duty and priority of government. Second, the government must preserve “the Queen’s Peace”. That is more than just law and order. It is the right of the subject to go about his lawful business in peace. That requires a system of criminal law and the means of enforcing it, including the judiciary and the police. Third, the government must provide a system of civil law for the settlement of disputes between individuals or groups.

From here, though, he moves "from the absolutely mandatory towards the highly desirable":

At the top of that list is the provision of a stable currency to be used as a medium of exchange and a store of value. Then there follows a structure of commercial law and regulation, and the provision of infrastructure, or the facilitation of that provision by others.

It is extremely doubtful that the government's involvement our monetary system is beneficial, and regulation of all kinds typically does more harm than good. As for infrastructure, it's easier to justify government involvement here, on our crowded island, than it is in North America or Australia, but I remain sceptical.

Thankfully, it seems Tebbit would draw the line at the services mentioned above:

After those comes a long list of desirables which are increasingly not absolutely necessary for a state to exist. Indeed there was a perfectly viable state and an effective government before they began to be provided by the state.

Universal education is highly desirable, but it does not have to be provided by government. The same is true of health care. Ignorance and disease can both be threats to a society or nation. So too can be poverty and policies to reduce poverty are highly desirable too.

What has happened in recent years is that the state has tended to monopolise the provision of these desirable goods and services in its own hands, freezing out alternative models, even if they may be better or less expensive, on the spurious grounds that uniformity matters more than quality, choice or variety. At its extremes this infantalises the citizen and increasingly baroque, overmanned and high cost structures are designed to give an illusion of choice.

In contrast, in the provision of food, the retail trade and food producers continually extend choice and drive down prices, in a manner adjudged impossible in the state sector. As ever, those who find managing their own responsibilities too difficult turn to displacement activities, principally the bossy intrusion into the rights of free speech and personal responsibility.

Tebbit isn't quite a libertarian, but if we only went as far as he proposes in rolling back the state, that would still be a massive improvement on the status quo.

My main reservation, as noted above, is that nobody is safe while the economy remains in the hands of politicians.

Hannan: a welcome end to declamatory legislation

An excellent piece today from Daniel Hannan:

Theresa May has behaved bravely and correctly by resisting the temptation to review our firearms laws following the Cumbria tragedy. The aftermath of these diabolical events is the one time when we shouldn’t rush to make policy. We wouldn’t be human if, at such moments, we didn’t allow our emotions to rule us.
...
Yet, again and again, we have seen governments panicked into essentially declamatory legislation – legislation, that is, proportionate to the volume of tabloid coverage, rather than the need to address a specific problem.

It started during the late Thatcher years. The Football Supporters Act, the War Crimes Act, the Dangerous Dogs Act, Section 28: all were asinine laws passed because politicians wanted to signal that they were concerned about something, to “send a message”. Things became far worse, though, under Tony Blair, especially after the attacks of 11 September 2001, when all manner of Draconian measures were passed, not to deal with identified threats, but to advertise the government’s toughness.

Hannan contrasts May's handling of the Cumbrian tragedy with Tony Blair's response to Dunblane:

Can you be certain that, if Labour were still in power, it would not be treating this calamity as yet another reason to enlarge state power? It happened after the Dunblane killings. No one argued that a ban on handguns would have made the slightest difference in that case: Thomas Hamilton had held his weapon illegally. Nor did anyone seriously take issue with the Cullen Report’s eminently moderate proposal that pistols should locked up at registered gun clubs. Instead, a filthy tabloid campaign suggested that anyone who voted against a total ban somehow didn’t care about the dead children. Tony Blair’s most nauseating speech as Labour leader was the one he gave to his 1997 party conference, in which he brandished the shrouds of the murdered infants:

“Some Tories accuse us of being emotional. Well, if they had been in that gym, if they had met those parents, sitting in those tiny chairs where once their children sat, they’d have been emotional, too”.

In fact, of course, the Tories had been in that gym. In an act of bipartisan decency, John Major had invited Blair, as Leader of the Opposition to accompany him. This is how he was repaid.

Unlike Hannan, I have no love for the Conservative party, but it seems that on this issue they have resisted the urge to make things worse, at least for now.

I'm inclined to agree that New Labour would not have shown such restraint.

DK: Democracy is not the object

A good post from DK on the subject of democracy:

The state's primary—and only—purpose should be to protect its citizens from aggression—whether that aggression comes from overseas or from other citizens. Under these terms, the state should only run Defence and Criminal Justice—and the only law should be "you shall not initiate force or fraud against someone's life, liberty or property."

This is the only way that will deliver freedom to all, rather than a select group—to allow people to oppress others is morally repugnant; to enshrine the majority's tyranny over the minority is just as wrong as our current system. But it is also mistaking the method for the desired result.
...
Democracy is the least worst way of protecting many citizens from the depredations of an over-mighty state, but it is not the object of the exercise: the endpoint, the desired result, is the maximisation of freedom for everyone.
...
And if you think that I am wrong, and that democracy is the desired goal, then you have amply proved my point; for in that case, you believe that the wishes of the greatest number should outweigh the rights of the few.

I agree, and I recommend the whole article.

Mass shooting and gun control

The BBC reports:

Taxi driver Derrick Bird was the subject of a massive police manhunt following a shooting spree through several areas of west Cumbria.
...
He went on to kill at least 12 people and injured another 25 in the county, before his body was found in woods. Police say they believe he took his own life.

They also have a piece on the history of mass shootings in the UK, and the relationship to gun control:

Multiple shootings are extremely rare in the UK and most incidents involving two or more deaths have been related to organised crime, such as feuds between drug dealers or gangs.

The Cumbria incident is the third mass-shooting incident in the UK in which a lone gunman has roamed around seeking out victims. Each of the previous incidents led to greater restrictions on firearms.

Sean Gabb provides the radical libertarian perspective:

The Libertarian Alliance, the radical free market and civil liberties institute, today calls for the relegalisation of civilian gun ownership in the United Kingdom as the only way for ordinary people to protect themselves against gun massacres. [This news release is prompted by the killings of at least five people on the 2nd June 2010 in and around the Cumberland town of Whitehaven.]

Speaking today in London, Dr Sean Gabb, Director of the Libertarian Alliance, comments:

"This outrage will certainly bring calls from the police and other victim disarmament advocacy groups for further gun control. However, bearing in mind that civilian ownership of handguns was outlawed in the two Firearms Acts of 1997, we fail to see, unless the murder weapon was a shotgun, what there is left to be outlawed.

"The Libertarian Alliance notes that these shootings would have been extremely difficult in a country where the people were allowed to arm themselves. We understand that the killer, Derrick Bird, was able to drive in perfect safety around Whitehaven, shooting people at random. None of his victims was in any position to return fire. Only when armed police could eventually be brought in did he feel it necessary to run away.

"In the United States, at least one campus shooting was brought to a premature end by armed civilians. The same is true in Israel, where many members of the public go about armed. Only in a country like England, where the people have been systematically disarmed, can a killer go about like a fox among chickens.

"The Libertarian Alliance believes that all the Firearms Acts from 1920 onwards should be repealed. The largely ineffective laws of 1870 and 1902 should also be repealed. It should once again be possible for adults to walk into a gun shop and, without showing any permit or proof of identity, buy as many guns and as much ammunition as they can afford. They should also be able to use lethal force, at home and in public, for the defence of life, liberty and property.

"Only then will ordinary people be safe from evil men like Derrick Bird."

While I'm sympathetic to Gabb's view, and especially to the injustice of innocent people left defenceless, I'm not certain that society would be better off if adults could "walk into a gun shop and, without showing any permit or proof of identity, buy as many guns and as much ammunition as they can afford".

Switzerland is an interesting case, though, as a BBC article from 27 September 2001 explains:

Guns are deeply rooted within Swiss culture - but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept.

The country has a population of six million, but there are estimated to be at least two million publicly-owned firearms, including about 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols.
...
Some pro-gun groups argue that Switzerland proves their contention that there is not necessarily a link between the availability of guns and violent crime in society.

I would tend to agree that there is "not necessarily a link". The BBC article goes on to note that

Switzerland is one of the world's richest countries, but has remained relatively isolated.

It has none of the social problems associated with gun crime seen in other industrialised countries like drugs or urban deprivation.

Of course, the association between gun crime and drugs is a result of prohibition. Legalise drugs, and the connection will be broken.

Earth to Epstein: voluntary exchange is not theft

The Register reports:

Angela Epstein, the Manchester-based columnist and ID cards poster girl, has written a furious lament for the scheme - and she's so angry she's started a Facebook group.

"I never wanted to be a poster girl for the ID project," Epstein rages in her latest treatise for the Manchester Evening News.

...

Epstein is occupied mostly as a "real life" reporter for voyeuristic gossip magazines, cold-calling bereaved parents and such. However, she shot to notoriety in December as the first member of the public to voluntarily lay down £30 for an ID card, even as the scheme was obviously doomed.

The Manchester Evening News article linked above is equally amusing (and depressing at the same time).

Epstein notes that

this was always a voluntary scheme, which I personally embraced because it suited my life

but now that the scheme has been cancelled, she insists

I want my money back. Otherwise, it is simply tantamount to theft.

No dear. You made a foolish investment, and that is all.

Epstein is well aware that the money paid by ID card holders (which she estimates at £450,000) does not come close to covering the cost of the ID card scheme ("around £257m to set up").

The real victims of theft, as usual, were the hapless taxpayers.

Angus Reid: UK would vote out of EU

Through Daniel Hannan, I discovered an Angus Reid (Vision Critical) report entitled "Britons Offer Harsh Review of Country’s EU Membership":

If a referendum on staying in the continental group were held today, 42% would vote to get out; 35% would vote to stay.

[LONDON – Jun. 1, 2010] – If given the chance, many people in Britain would distance their country from the European Union (EU), a new Angus Reid Public Opinion poll has found.
In the online survey of a representative national sample of 1,984 British adults, 51 per cent of respondents say EU membership has been moderately negative (26%) or very negative (25%) for the United Kingdom.

Conversely, seven per cent of Britons say the EU has been very positive for the UK, and 31 per cent regard it as moderately positive.

If a referendum on the UK’s permanence in the EU were called, two fifths of Britons (42%) would vote in favour of pulling out, while 35 per cent would vote to stay.

If a plebiscite on the UK adopting the euro were called, a large majority of Britons (79%) would vote against abandoning the pound as the national currency. Only nine per cent of respondents would welcome the euro.

If a plebiscite were actually called, the EU and some of our own politicians would spend significant sums of taxpayers' money trying to convince us to stay. The BBC and other EU-friendly media would likewise kick into action, and may swing the result. It would be a terrible distraction at a time when our politicians should be fully focused on our national finances, and the uncertainty would upset markets that are already jittery.

On the other hand, think of the enormous benefits if we were to break free ...