I guess this is the morning to clear out the backlog of bits of stuff that I’ve been meaning to report on, but haven’t yet.

Almost two months ago now, we were working on securing our visas for the UK.  (Wow.  Two months already.  Time flies.  Yike!)  While filling out the absurd pile of paperwork, I ran across the following questions that gave me pause:

In times of either peace or war have you‚ ever been involved in‚ or suspected of involvement in‚ war crimes‚ crimes against humanity or genocide?

Have you ever‚ by any means or medium‚ expressed views that justify or glorify terrorist violence or that may encourage others to terrorist acts or other serious criminal acts?

Have you engaged in any other activities that might indicate that you may not be considered a person of good character?

Ok, so I can sort-of see the first of these.  This seems to me a little like the fact that the US IRS can nail you for failing to report illegal income.  (For those of you who may need this info, I think it should go in box 21 of this year’s 1040.  Though the instructions aren’t as explicit about it this year as they have been in the past.  Note, however, that you cannot list illegal drug use as a medical expense on your itemized deductions.  That seems rather asymmetric…)  But, really, who is going to apply for a visa to the UK and then say, “Oh, gee!  Yes, when I was a general in the Muddonian army, I ate 100,000 Oozeville babies, braised gently in white wine.  I better tell them that on the forms.”

The second is touchier.  In the US, anyway, this verges on free speech issues.  Justifying and glorifying things (no matter how horrid they may be) are generally protected as free speech.  Actually encouraging people to evil acts, though, steps over the line, and is usually not protected.  So, while this one makes me somewhat uncomfortable, I can see where they’re coming from.  The focus on terrorism, though, is somewhat frightening.  If glorifying terrorism is bad, shouldn’t glorifying, say, serial killing or rape be just as bad?  Except that the latter would get a bunch of song writers and movie directors in trouble.

But it’s the last one that really disturbs me.  Talk about a catch-all, “we just want something that allows us to stomp you, regardless of who you are or what you’ve done” kind of clause.  A “person of good character”?  What does that mean?  Is there a legal statute that defines good character?  How do I know if I’m in violation?  Does being an obnoxious boor at a party violate the good character clause?  What about building up a BO that stuns trees by failing to shower for a couple of weeks?  Cheating on science exams in 4th grade?  Picking your nose?  Not volunteering for the church potluck?  Watching porn?  Telling sexually explicit jokes in the workplace?  Being from a different religion?  This clause is so vague as to be terrifying.

Now, granted, this is just for a visa application.  Stuff that they can use as grounds to deny you entry to the country, rather than grounds to lock you up and throw away the key.  But still, it reflects a disturbing mindset on the part of the government.

Not that the US government has always been a shining beacon of light, freedom, and tolerance itself…