Message from Tony: I don't destroy liberties, I protect them
There is a charge, crafted by parts of the right wing and now taken up by parts of the left, that New Labour is authoritarian, in particular, that I am. We are intent on savaging British liberties, locking up those who dissent and we abhor parliamentary or other accountability.
So, Tony agrees that there is a unified opposition to their policies on civil liberties across the political spectrum
The reason right wingers are keen on this is clear. New Labour has eschewed traditional forms of leftist statism. So the type of claim they used to make about the Attlee or Wilson governments they can't plausibly make about us.
WTF? does he think people are sitting round saying Damn Blair's not doing that Left Statism... we've got to think of another way to get him...
Have we become indifferent to liberty? At one level, the charge is easy to debunk. But on another level, there is a serious debate about the nature of liberty in the modern world. I accept the good faith of our critics. I just believe them to be profoundly mistaken.
Good old Tony, it's the 'I understand you, but, poppets, you've just not understood me' defence again. Naturally this bit comes right after the 'You're only criticising us because we're not Left Statists'part. The serious debate has been brought about because of your draconian laws and the fact that people are sick and tired of your paternalistic authoritarianism.
But first, the true record
Time for a deep breath
This government has introduced the Human Rights Act, so that, for the first time, a citizen can challenge the power of the state solely on the basis of an infringement of human rights,
This is the Human Rights Act you're planning to suspend or amend?"Should legal obstacles arise we will legislate further, including if necessary amending the Human Rights Act" - Blair 5/8/05
and the Freedom of Information Act, the most open thing any British government has done since the Reform Acts of the 1830s.
You mean the freedom of Information Act you obstructed and delayed as much as possible, and are planning to charge people for making requests?
We have devolved more power than any government since the 1707 Act of Union
And what a success that's been
introduced transparency into political funding and restricted the Prime Minister's right to nominate to the House of Lords. In other words, I have given away more prime ministerial power than any predecessor for more than 100 years.
Transparency? We call it 'Cash For Peerages'. You fought tooth and nail for an APPOINTED second chamber, not an elected one. Who appoints them? Not Father Bloody Christmas. As for giving away power, no PM in history has had so much power concentrated in his office. There has beem much disquiet about the PM and advisors making policy themselves, even Hutton complained about this.
As for parliament, I have spent proportionately more time answering questions than any predecessor; given more statements; am the only PM ever to agree to appear before the select committee chairs; the only one to give monthly press conferences. And I gave a vote specifically on whether to go to war.
As PM you have the worst attendance record of any leader. Going to war? Your party demanded you did that, against your wishes you were forced to do it.
What about the charge that ID cards and anti-terrorism legislation transgress basic liberties and are, as David Cameron put it, 'unBritish'? Here, we must put a new case about liberty in the modern world. I am from the generation that I would characterise, crudely, as hard on behaviour, but soft on lifestyle, i.e. I support tough measures on crime but am totally pro gay rights. I believe in live and let live, except where your behaviour harms the freedom of others. A society with rules but without prejudices is how I might sum it up.
Taking away rights enshrined in law since the Magna Carta is Un British, you don't seem to deny this but prattle on with some nonsense about your generation.
But the 'rules' are becoming harder to enforce. Antisocial behaviour isn't susceptible to normal court process. Modern organised crime is really ugly, with groups, often from overseas, frequently prepared to use horrific violence. And, though I get into constant trouble for saying it, while I completely condemn IRA terrorism, I believe it was different in nature and scale from the new global Islamic terrorism we face. For me, this is not an issue of liberty but of modernity
Are the 'rules' becoming harder to enforce? Modern organised crime is 'really ugly'. Unlike the Krays.. Oh, we read that some of them are 'foreign'. Bet we never had foreign criminals before. IRA terrorism was different in nature and scale... there was a hell of a lot more of it. No muslim group has set off as many bombs as the IRA did, or killed as many people as the Loyalists did. But Tony's trying to change the subject. Notice how he says it's not about civil liberties but about modernity. Utter guff.
If we fail to tackle ASB because the court system is inadequate, other people's liberties suffer. If we don't take head-on organised criminals or terrorists, others are harmed. The question is not one of individual liberty vs the state but of which approach best guarantees most liberty for the largest number of people.
It is about individual liberty against the state's power. The best way to 'guarantee most liberty for the largest number of people' is to give rights to individuals, not to take away traditional liberties from everyone. If we follow Tony's logic then 49% of the population could be sent to Gitmo so the 51% could live free, well, freeish because the laws would still be on the books...
In theory, traditional court processes and attitudes to civil liberties could work. But the modern world is different from the world for which these court processes were designed.
What's this about? His cry seems to be Civil Rights? That's sooo 20th Century. The Magna Carta has done the job for almost a thousand years, longer than Mr Blair's legislation will survive I'll wager.
It is a world of vast migration, most of it beneficial but with dangerous threats. We have unparalleled prosperity, but also the break-up of traditional community and family ties and the emergence of behaviour that was rare 50 years ago.
Look Out, foreigners about, cries New Labour. You can't have civil liberties AND niggers migrants.
Organised crime operates to incredible levels of sophistication. Organisations that support terrorism take enormous care to avoid infringing the strict letter of the law. Last August, I named Hizb ut-Tahrir as such an organisation. Within days, its website changed, putting out a very moderate message, and I was lambasted for trying to curb free speech. But this is an organisation which has been banned in Germany and Denmark: it is active on campuses where it promotes its extremist message.
By now I'm beginning to suspect that this article is a c&p of several old speeches. It just doesn't hang together. He gives the example above and seems to be saying, we change the law, people keep it and that shows how evil they really are. Most of us would point out that the problem is that the laws are badly drafted and just not clear.
People should be prevented from glorifying terrorism. You can say it is a breach of the right to free speech but in the real world, people get hurt when organisations encourage hatred. We expect similar objections when the Serious Organised Crime Agency starts fully on 1 April with extensive powers to make it difficult for criminals to do business. But without these powers, the agency and police face an uphill task.
WTF is glorifying terrorism? How do you define it? You didn't during the debate in parliament, so what exactly are you talking about?
On ID cards, there is a host of arguments, irrespective of security, why their time has come. Most people already have a range of different cards, for workplace, bank or leisure. And, contrary to what is said, it will not be an offence not to carry one.
So, why do we need yet another card? It may not be an offence yet to carry one, but we will NEED one.
Finally, back to politics. The worry some people have is that the Tories have joined with the Lib Dems and that we are therefore on the wrong side of the debate. I would answer: have confidence in our position.
No, the worry is that you and your lunatic friend over the pond are destroying long held liberties
If I were the Tories, the one area where I would stick with a traditional line is law and order. That they find themselves in a strange place explains why the Tories may ape the Lib Dems on this issue in parliament but talk tough to the electorate.
But you took the traditional tory line on law and order...
Their attitude to liberty does indicate, though, a refusal to understand the modern world. If the nature of the threat changes, so should our policies. That is not destroying our liberties, but protecting them.
Is that really the best you can do? Not one word about rendition, nothing about Guantanamo, bugger all about the actual laws you've put in place or the ones you're planning.
Nothing.
The man is incorrigible, no
The man is incorrigible, no shame whatsoever. The patronising way he speaks to the electorate demonstrates a complete lack of respect for any position contrary his own. He must think we are all completely stupid to believe his waffling newspeak in the face of all the evidence pointing to his totalitarian nature. Great post Quarsan, I like the way you took his pathetic ‘argument’ apart piece by piece.
I still can't believe you
I still can't believe you Brits are taking this laying down. Where's the old bulldog spirit? Blair is leaving you as naked citizens with no rights left at all. For all Blair's bluster about human rights he seems to have forgotten this one which I believe was drafted by British officials:
Article 12 Universal Declaration of Human Rights
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Excellent analysis of the
Excellent analysis of the usual crappy speech. I think you are right abt cut and paste - it is pointless listening to him speak anymore as we have already heard his one and only many times over. Can't even bear to look at his pious, patronising phizzog on TV now.
Good article. Couldn't agree
Good article. Couldn't agree more. It's so extraordinarily dangerous the kind of language and the kind of arbitrary justifications Blair is using to lead people back into slavery. There's no justification for it, it's a set of choices based on a lie, and it's just astonishing this lunatic is still in office pumping out his poisonous crap.
I think what Tony's trying
I think what Tony's trying to say in this article is that you can have gay sex as long as he can watch.
A really excellent post!
A really excellent post! What really irritates me about Blair is he is 'correct' about everything and everyone else just 'misunderstands' him.
He talks to us like 5 yr old kids.