AN ENGLISHMAN'S HOME...

AN ENGLISHMAN'S HOME...
Five Years Ago
Sunday, 28 December 2008

When it comes to property crime, Britain seems an increasingly grim place to me - not so much because of the high levels of burglary, cellphone muggings, etc, but because of the woeful passivity the state demands of the citizenry in the face of outrageous provocations. Many Britons - including Ann Widung, cited below - misunderstand American enthusiasm for the Second Amendment. The point of gun ownership isn't that you're itching for a showdown with every ne'er-do-well in the county; it's to lessen the odds of such a showdown ever occurring. Like they say, an armed society is a polite society, if only in comparison to Ms Widung's "culture of peace and solidarity":

"Mark Steyn may prefer American hillbilly culture to that of the Swedish nanny state," wrote Ann Widung of Eastbourne on our Letters page last September. She was dissenting from my observations on the remarkable passivity of bystanders at the murder of Anna Lindh. "You may criticise the Swedish police," continued Ms Widung, "for being inefficient in solving murders, but I prefer to live in a culture of peace and solidarity to one of fear and gung-ho mentality. Better a nanny-state baby than Mark Steyn's 'citizen'."

Well, it's true I subscribe to a gung-ho mentality, but I don't live in a culture of fear. In fact, British friends visiting me in this corner of northern New England from their crime-ridden leafy shires always remark on my blithe unconcern about "home security". I don't have laser alarms, or window locks, or, indeed, a front-door key. Like most of my neighbours, I leave my home unlocked and, when I park the car, I leave the key in the ignition because then you always know where to find it.

I'm able to do this because - and this is where the gung-ho bit comes in - I live in a state with very high rates of gun ownership. In other words, if you're some teen punk and you want to steal my $70 television set, they're likely to be picking bits of your skull out of my wainscoting. But the beauty of this system is that I'm highly unlikely ever to have to blow your head off. The fact that most homeowners are believed to be armed reduces crime, in my neighbourhood, to statistically insignificant levels. Hence, my languid approach to home security.

Now I understand Ms Widung prefers her "culture of peace and solidarity". I think this means that, when confronted by a ne'er-do-well, she'd hold hands and sing What the World Needs Now is Love, Sweet Love. I wouldn't personally recommend this, because, if he wasn't in a murderous rage beforehand, he almost certainly will be by about halfway through the middle-eight. But each to her own. Still, Ms Widung must surely be dismayed by the number of her fellow nanny-staters who voted in Today's poll for a "listeners' law" that would permit property owners "to use any means to defend their homes against intruders".

A "listeners' law" is, of course, a pathetic gimmick. Judging from the reaction of Stephen Pound, MP, the modish proponents of "direct democracy" believe in letting the people's voice be heard only so long as it agrees with what their betters have already decided. So, having agreed to introduce the listeners' choice as a Bill in Parliament, Mr Pound was a bit shocked to find the winning proposal wasn't one of the nanny-state suggestions (a ban on smoking, compulsory organ donation, mandatory voting) or the snobby joke ones (a ban on Christmas decorations before December), but the right to defend your home.

One can easily foresee New Labour, having run out of anything else to regulate, introducing the smoking/organs stuff halfway through a third term, and even the Christmas decorations ban is well within the ambition of the more zealous council planning enforcers.

So, reasonably enough, Today listeners voted for the only proposal they knew for certain the governing elite will never go for. Why, the People's Champion himself, Stephen Pound, dismissed it as a "ludicrous, brutal, unworkable blood-stained piece of legislation. I can't remember who it was who said, 'The people have spoken, the bastards'."

That would be Dick Tuck, a long-ago California state senate candidate, in an unusually pithy concession speech. It's an amusing remark as applied to the electorate's rejection of oneself. It's not quite so funny when applied, by Mr Pound, to people impertinent enough to bring up a topic that you and the rest of the governing class have decided is beyond debate. As used by Mr Tuck, it reflects a rough'n'tumble vernacular politics; as used by Mr Pound, it comes out closer to "Let 'em eat cake".

None the less, the professional opinion-formers came down on the side of Mr Pound. The Independent's Joan Smith recalled that, when she spied a burglar on her porch, she had no desire to "blow him away". Nor do I, if I'm honest.

But I do want to have the right to make the judgment call. You can call 999, get the answering machine rerouting you to the 24-Hour Action Hotline three counties away, leave a message, and wait for the Community Liaison Officer to get back next week if he's returned from his emotional trauma leave by then.

But that's the point: you're there, the police aren't. And, even in jurisdictions whose constabularies aren't quite so monumentally useless as Britain's, a citizen in his own home should have the right to make his own assessment of the danger without being second-guessed by fellows who aren't on the scene.

And, once you give the citizen that right, he hardly ever has to exercise it. Take Miss Smith's situation: she's at home, but the burglar still comes a-knocking. Thanks to burglar alarms, British criminals have figured out that it's easier to wait till you come home, ring the door bell, and punch you in the kisser.

In my part of the world, that's virtually unknown. In America as a whole, 12.7 per cent of burglaries are of "occupied homes"; in Britain, it's 59 per cent. Installing a laser system may make your property more secure, but it makes you less so. As for Ann Widung's "culture of fear", it's not American therapists but English ones who've made a lucrative speciality out of treating children traumatised by such burglaries.

As I wrote in September, to expect the state to protect you is to be a bystander in your own fate. It's interesting that, during the recent security scares, the terrorists seem to have been targeting BA and Air France. They seem to reckon they've a better chance of pulling something on a non-US airline. I hope that's not true, and that when the next shoebomber bends down to light his sock, he'll find himself sitting next to some gung-ho Brit rather than the "peace and solidarity" type.

You can have a nanny state if you prefer. But not for long.

from The Daily Telegraph, January 6th 2004