Under a law enacted last year, the Dutch police has the power to conduct massive searches. The way it works is that an area of town is cordoned off, and everybody within that area is subjected to a search in order to confiscate weapons and drugs. And they're not just on the streets, as police officers also go into bars and cafes and search the people there. After a slow start these searches are becoming common. Last Friday there was a big search around the Rembrandtplein, a popular nightlife hotspot in Amsterdam. About 1,000 people were subjected to a search. As a result 25 knives were confiscated, an imitation gun, some pepperspray and cocaine. This kind of police activity now happens almost every weekend. It does not make the newspapers anymore (the link above goes to a local TV station's news).

The goal of these raids is to reduce crime by making the possession of weapons riskier. You're not allowed to carry any kind of weapon here, be it a knife, gun or pepperspray, and the statistics from Friday night's raid indicate that about 3% of those searched had proscribed weaponry on them. In removing these from circulation, you could call the raid a success. It would be interesting to see more details on the kinds of people who were caught; were these hardened criminals, or just ordinary people who happened to have a swiss army knife on them? I suspect hardened criminals will find a way to escape the raid. Ultimately, it's the actual recorded crime numbers that will show whether these raids are having any effect on reducing crime.

Irrespective of that, the infringement of civil liberties that these searches represent is very serious indeed. Going out for dinner and a drink in Amsterdam (or anywhere in the Netherlands) now puts you at risk of being searched by the police. Not because they have probable cause or a reasonable suspicion, but simply by the fact that you're there. It puts an excessive amount of power in the hands of the authorities, and history shows that such power is likely to be abused. The state has no business prying into an individual's affairs as long as there is no reasonable suspicion of criminal behavior.

Crossing that line and casting the net as wide as the Dutch authorities have done will also have more pernicious effects in the longer term. It will inure the population to intrusive government control, which makes the next step on the way to eviscerating civil liberties that much easier. The most distressing thing is that these raids enjoy massive public support.

if the current level of oversight and intrusion fails to curb crime, the temptation will be great to ratchet it up a notch. It will be possible to reduce crime by ever greater amounts of oversight and intrusion, but with every step you take down that road you end up closer to an authoritarian police state. It's better not to get on that road on the first place.

With the election campaign in full swing in the Netherlands, the Christian Democrats have come up with the idea of extending the random searches that are now conducted in towns. The idea is that by randomly stopping and searching large numbers of people (including the cordoning off of areas of town) crime will be reduced. The first such searches have resulted in several arrests with the confiscation of guns and knives. There is no indication that this actually will reduce crime, but the measures are depressingly popular. Anybody can be searched; there's no need for probable cause or anything like that. There's no Fourth Amendment in the Netherlands. An "unreasonable search" is a search that the police decide is unreasonable.

So the Christian Democrats have come up with the idea of extending these searches to trains and highways too. The police would have the authority stop cars at random and search them for drugs and weapons. The first target area would be the Amsterdam beltway, the A 10, which has recently been the subject of other idiotic proposals, such as the ring-fencing of Amsterdam.

In the words the second-in-command at the Christian Democrats, "[this] is necessary for a safer society, for the protection of citizens." But if you're not creeped out about that, he added that the erosion of citizens' privacy is not an impediment. "The protection of society is more important than the privacy of the individual." That's a pretty scary sentiment to be coming from a prominent politician of a middle-of-the-road political party. One that is going to win the largest number of votes in the upcoming election no less. He's already received support from the Labour politician Van Heemst, who basically said "we thought of it first!"

It must be one of the sophisticated European things I don't understand. I guess I'm too simple with my cowboyish unilaterist insistence on privacy and such. With such widespread support, the practice of random searches is going to expand. Bear that in mind next time you travel to Europe. Or better yet, bear that in mind next time you hear the American Left glorifying life in Europe.

This is one of those moments where I sit back, scratch my head and wonder, "did he really say that?" Crime is a problem in the Netherlands, but so are the law enforcement authorities, who have all but thrown in the towel on the fight against crime. Then we also have the chief of police in Amsterdam, who thinks that the police should not investigate crime if the victim had not taken sufficient precautions. Compulsory national IDs for everyone over 12 are one reaction from politicians, as are random searches.

But since combating crime probably does fall under his job description, the chief of police has now come up with a new idea: ringfencing Amsterdam. He says that the police wants to get a better grip on who's entering and leaving the city, so he proposes installing security gates at highway exits to scan all license plates. This will help find stolen cars, he says. It will also help people feel Watched. He also wants stricter traffic checks; they're like checkpoints where you're checked for alcohol in your breath, except at these checkpoints you can get stopped for any reason. I drove past one such checkpoint last Saturday. Apparently this sort of thing is constitutional. To top it all off, the chief of police also wants tighter checks on people who enter Amsterdam by rail or boat. I think we should call this the Erich Honecker Memorial Project.

People with ideas like this should not be in any position of authority, anywhere. Least of all should they be the chief of police. The fact that the Amsterdam police chief does not shy away from making such comments publicly (even if he might have them privately) is also frightening, because it means he's not too afraid of the reaction. And that tells you something about the sad state of people's affinity for civil liberties here.

The Dutch Minister of Justice has announced plans that would make the carrying of an ID compulsory for everyone over the age of 12. Anyone who fails to produce a valid ID on demand is liable to be fined up to 2,250 euro or be jailed for a maximum of 2 months. Moreover, it's not just the police who'll be able to demand an ID under the threat of fines and incarceration, but other civil servants involved in checking compliance with government regulations will be able to do so too. For a supposedly "liberal" nation, such intrusions of the state into one's personal liberty are remarkably popular in this country.

It's bad enough that the police would be granted this power given the sad state of law enforcement in the Netherlands. But by giving every meddling two-bit bureaucrat the same powers is heaping madness upon insanity. These measures come in response to increasing worries about crime, but it's really just a proposal for creating the impression that something is being done, rather than truly tackling crime. But the deleterious effect on civil liberties will be felt nonetheless. Criminals will hardly be inconvenienced, while it'll be the ordinary citizens who'll be on the receiving end of this ID scheme. If crime in New York can be reduced without compulsory ID, then sure placid old Holland can do it as well, one would think. Why should the police and petty bureaucrats get this power, when the auhtorities are capitulating to criminals and the police will not deign to go after burglars?

Since we've got elections coming up, I've tried to find what the major parties think of this. The VVD, the party that calls itself Liberal (in the classical sense) comes out in favor. The reasoning is a bit contorted, because they say if the police can search you, they should also be able to ask you for an ID. But the thought that the searches might raise serious civil liberty concerns does not cross their collective minds. The PvdA (Labor) Party waffles on the issue, asking whether compulsory IDs will increase safety without answering the question. Instead, they go on the tried-and-failed road of spending more money on prevention. The Christian Democrats of the CDA are in favor of this measure. Only the eco-luddites of the Green Left party seem to opposed to it.

Not exactly inspiring, or indeed an encouragement to go voting in January.

Here's another classic headline. It says "Opstelten: Limit citizens' privacy for more security." Opstelten is the mayor of Rotterdam and he wants additional powers in order to be able to deal with various problems such as tackling serial troublemakers. He wants the government to link all of its databases, more scope for video cameras in public places, the authority to shut down bars, coffeeshops and brothels if they cause ongoing problems.

It's a wishlist for more government power. The notion that the state can shut down establishments it does not like is disturbing. If such places are breaking the law, they should be shut down. But the way this has been phrased gives the impression that the mayor would have considerable discretion over who is to be shut down. That's simply pre-programming future abuses of power.

The scary thing is, these kinds of measures probably will be popular, much like the searches in Amsterdam.

Under new Dutch legislation, the police can now cordon off areas of a town and search everybody in that area for weapons. No protection of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches. If you're in the area, you'll get searched, just for being there. The weapons they're looking for are of course guns (in gun-free Holland), knives, or basically anything that may be used as a weapon. A poll finds massive support for this erosion of civil liberties, with 92% of those polled in favor. Other key results are that 82% think that the searches need not be announced in advance and 67% opine they can be carried at random times. Also 78% claim to have no problem with being searched.

I guess that puts me in the 8% who think this is an outrageous erosion of civil liberties. It is depressing to think that the population has become so inured to state intrusion in all aspects of life, that a draconian measure such as this one finds broad support. Once you start down the path of outsourcing self-defense to the state, the contract between the state and the citizen changes. No longer is the citizen the ultimate source of authority, but he becomes the state's supplicant for mercies and protection. You are not supposed to defend yourself, as Big Brother will take care of that for you. Except when he's not around (not even we here have managed to slip THAT far).

Crime is a big and growing problem in the Netherlands, but eroding civil liberties is not the right way of fixing that problem. It's another step on the way to a more authoritarian structure of government oversight. Sure, crime in a completely totalitarian state will be lower. But it's not a fun place to live. Then again, I guess people deserve the kind of government they've got.

The Canada Customs and Revenue Agency has confiscated a batch of newsletter defending "Israel's moral right to exist," according to the National Post. The pamphlet in question is can be found here. Diana Hsieh has more commentary.

This is in the country where mob rule that shuts down free speech goes unpunished, as long it is the "right kind" of speech that is shut down. This is a performance worthy of Europe.

On an average day in this country, if you walk in public areas in towns and cities, there is an increasing chance that at some point you'll be filmed by closed-circuit TV cameras. It does not stop things like bike theft, but you can't catch everything. Not yet, anyway. Also if you happen to be in a nightlife district, you could get stopped and searched for no other reason than being there. Now the fearless Dutch government is planning the next step in keeping tabs on you: more intensive speed checks on highways. (The reason the Dutch government is fearless is because the Dutch population isn't exactly well-armed and assertive in defending against abuses, but I digress.)

The plan involves doing away with stationary cameras and replacing them with speed checks over a distance. You get logged at the start, and again at the end, and the system then calculates your average speed. If it's over the limit, you get a ticket. This is obviously a far more intrusive system than a solitary camera, which is only triggered by a speeding violation. This system, by necessity, has to keep track of all traffic passing through. And the plans are to introduce it on a wide scale too: after an initial trial at a half a dozen locations, the plans are supposedly for a minimum of 55 such catchment areas.

Of course, this will work to reduce speeding. And of course, it will do very little to increase safety. And of course, it will provide a nice cashflow to the government. This is again one of those cases where there is a significant loss of privacy for a marginal benefit. But perhaps people have become so used to being watched that it does not come as an imposition anymore. That is really a scary thought.

Next time you're in Amsterdam's center at night, don't be surprised if the police stop you and search you. And seize anything that they deem to be a weapon. The Dutch daily Parool reports that a new local ordinance will be enacted which will give the police these powers. The mayor will designate certain "safety risk areas," in which several annual "weapons checks" will be held. But Amsterdam is not the first to go down this route. Last night in Rotterdam, the police cordoned off the center of the city and checked everybody to see if they were carrying weapons or munitions. A number of arrests were made. The northern port city of Den Helder will begin doing the same this weekend.

In Amsterdam, it's all part of a bigger scheme to reduce violence. Under the quintessentially bureaucratic moniker of "Updated Progam of Dealing with Aggression and Violence," 1.2 million euros have been earmarked by the city council to reduce violence. The other parts involve more CCTV cameras, checking for guns, "youth safety," strengthening "oversight," combating violence against the "overseers" (police and the like), safety in public transport, combating domestic violence and street violence in the nightlife areas.

That's quite a shopping list of "oversight" measures they have there. The goal? By 2006, the council hopes to have reduced the number of violent incidents with weapons by a quarter. Weapon-ownership (including knives and guns) amongst schoolchildren they hope to reduce by 80%.

Putting all of this together, it entails a substantial increase in government oversight of public life. Going for a night out in Amsterdam and many other Dutch cities means that you have to check some of your liberties at the door. Your own front door, that is. It is outright scary that you can end up being sealed into an area of town by police, and not let out before you've been searched for no other reason than being there. This is creepy stuff. Add the increased use of CCTV cameras and we're are one step closer to the Panopticon State as Samizdata would call it.

Will it work? Well, it is probably going to reduce casual violence a bit. It will have a deterrent effect on people. So in some sense, it will work, but it will come at a serious cost to personal liberty. The logical extension of this kind of government thinking is to have random searches of people's property, tag everyone with a transmitter and GPS system and forcibly implant thought recorders.

I have to go now; if you need me, I'll be at the store buying bulk quantities of tin foil. I'll need it for the hats.