Obsessed with rights, blind to liberty

[Bono]

Telegraph Article

 Obsessed with rights, blind to liberty
(Filed: 30/09/2005)

There was a telling defensiveness about the Prime Minister's apology to Walter Wolfgang, the elderly Labour activist who had the temerity to voice what most delegates kept to themselves in Brighton this week about the Iraq war. "I wasn't in the conference centre at the time myself," Mr Blair was quick to make clear, before blaming the volunteer stewards for their excess of zeal.


But the real scandal of the Wolfgang affair was not that he was frog-marched from the conference floor, but that when he tried to get back in, he was detained briefly by the police under anti-terrorism legislation. Surely there could be no more vivid illustration of how Labour has wrecked the historic balance between freedom and security than in an 82-year-old Jewish refugee from Germany being detained under terrorism legislation for no graver offence than having noisily accused a politician of lying.

This is a Government obsessed with "rights", but blind to any notion of liberty. Historic procedures such as trial by jury and habeas corpus are viewed almost with contempt by a Prime Minister who seems to regard them as the unloved relics of a bygone age, like fox hunting. The Government passes the Data Protection Act - supposedly to give us new rights to privacy - while it simultaneously lays the groundwork for compulsory ID cards, which would be the most intrusive peace-time legislation ever enacted, and would require all of us to submit unique biometric data to the state. As the Government has trampled on our liberties, it has enshrined spurious new rights under the Human Rights Act, now five years old.

In Brighton on Tuesday, the Prime Minister promised "a radical extension of summary powers to police and local authorities to take on the wrong-doers". This is a classic piece of Blairite rhetoric, designed to appeal to instinctive conservatives outside the traditional Labour coalition by ostensibly putting him at odds with his own party's history. And of course it has no chance of being enacted, not least because it would breach Article 6 of the Human Rights Convention which sets down the right to a fair trial.

Mr Blair ties himself up in these knots because he does not understand the simple notion of a liberal society, based on principles of the rule of law and of limited government. He must always tinker and control because - as a life-long politician with scant experience outside of that bubble - he cannot understand the simple human desire to be left alone. Other politicians should learn from this. If the Conservatives fail in Blackpool next week to take on the baton from Mr Wolfgang and hold the Government to account, they will no longer be worthy of being regarded as an Opposition.

<<Fixing url - PB>>

[minionofmidas]

"a radical extension of summary powers to police and local authorities to take on the wrong-doers". This is a classic piece of Blairite rhetoric, designed to appeal to instinctive conservatives outside the traditional Labour coalition by ostensibly putting him at odds with his own party's history.

It's a classic piece of fascist rhetoric.
Not saying Blair is a fascist.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I find it odd that so many journalists have decided to do so much analysis over the bizarre over-reaction of two stewards to a heckler; it's not as though they were actually ordered to do that (unless the apologies that came very, very fast were part of some grand conspiracy to cover it all up, unless Straw suddenly got all sensitive to hecklers (he isn't)...)

What's even stranger is the why some have decided to look back at the "good old days" when nothing like that every happend; except that it did o/c...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Oh and that's a classic Torygraph article. If anything I'd say it's even more pompous and hysterical than normal...

[afleitch]

Oh and that's a classic Torygraph article. If anything I'd say it's even more pompous and hysterical than normal...

Thats an even more pompous and hysterical thing to say Al! Just because it appears in the Telegraph does not mean you should be as dismissive of it's validity. In all honesty while I don't personally care about what happened to the 82 year old, the article makes a good point about an increasingly autocratic government trying to enforce both 'cultural tolerance' and anti-terror measures at the same time. It really is actimg like nothing more than a modern day Politburo. Labour may be able to shake off it's socialism, but it can't cast of it's autocratic 'we know whats best' attitude to governance.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Thats an even more pompous and hysterical thing to say Al!

No it isn't. The article is written from the standard-issue hypocritical Torygraph line. That rag never had any problems with the numerous abuses of power committed by the Thatcher government in the '80's, or any previous Tory government for that matter. Because obviously the Human Rights Act is a far greater infringement on liberty than illegally spying on thousands of people in the '80's

I don't have a high opinion of any British newspaper and if the article had come from (say) the Indie, I'd have been ivory tower liberal elitists.

[afleitch]

Your twisting things now. This isn't about the Conservatives or even the Telegraph. It is how Labour are doing things, right here right now.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This isn't about the Conservatives or even the Telegraph.

Yes it is. If the Torygraph wants to take a moral highground over "liberties" then I don't see anything wrong with pointing out the blatent hypocrisy of them doing so.
Ditto the Tories, who've been playing this game ever since Churchill's "gestapo" speech in 1945.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And I don't agree with all of that. I do think that the Torygraph's article is wrong and hypocritical though.

[afleitch]

Okay, okay. You don't like the 'Torygraph' just like I hate the 'Grauniad.' (I like neither, I'm a Times man) But you can't slam an article just because you don't like the newspaper it appears in. Then Telegraph publishes a lot of nonsense, but you should attack those who wrote the articles and their grasp of the facts and figures if you don't agree with it. You never know, this article could have been turned down by other newspapers.

And secondly, such an acidic article comes with the territory. Labour have been in power for 8 years now and deserve to be attacked in the same way as the Tories were. That's part of a healthy opposition and it's only going to get worse for them.

My problem with Labour is that they have been in power for 8 years but still act like they've just been elected.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

But you can't slam an article just because you don't like the newspaper it appears in.

Generally speaking no, but this article is very, very typical of the sort of stuff the Torygraph publishes

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I made a blanket attack on journos earlier. Does that count?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not likely as the article fits in very strongly with the rags editorial line (it might actually be an editorial; authors name isn't mentioned on the article) and most stuff all papers do is in-house these days (not that that's a good thing).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My problem isn't with the acidic nature of the article (it's much more polite than some of the genuinely vicious **** the Indie has taken to publishing) but quite how hypocritical it is.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Technically they have only just been elected

[afleitch]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And Thatcher was fresh as a daisy in 1987

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And Thatcher was fresh as a daisy in 1987

Technically, yes

[minionofmidas]

Your twisting things now. This isn't about the Conservatives or even the Telegraph. It is how Labour are doing things, right here right now.

Your doing two different debates at the same time!
And your both right on your main point.