We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Our “irresponsible” media Mr Clarke pointed to recent articles in the Guardian, Observer and the Independent newspapers which made “incorrect, tendentious and over-simplified” statements about Labour’s record on civil liberties.
– BBC Online
The pieces I’ve seen there were actually considerably more accurate than his rebuttals, and relied not at all on the circularity and misleading literalism that is the foundation of any Home Office statement. But maybe he’s worried about anyone else getting into the business of tendentiousness and over-simplification in relation to civil liberties. That’s his (and Mr Blair’s) job.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
I’ve had tendenitis in my right arm for years, and it’s extremely apinful. I don’t see what’s so funny that you should make jokes about something that is a misery for millions of people. I only wish you and your sarcastic typing fingers could feel what I feel…
What? Tendentious? Ten-den-tious?
Oh, never mind.
Not only is this condition apinful, it can be very painful, too. Geesh.
Are civil liberties / Liberty becoming the new political battleground?
The Observer yesterday quotes Blair:
The same article later mentions a new tory forum on Liberty (OK it’s only hot air but it’s a start):
Shouldn’t that be to ‘protect’ liberty rather than to ‘promote’ it, or are our basic rights now reduced to something that Cameron and Osborne can use in some obscene door-to-door salesman gimmickry?
Julian – this is a rebranding exercise as to what civil liberties are. Just as people are fooled into thinking “choice” is “freedom” (it is not) and “change” is “improvement” (certainly not!), or even “investment” as being “reform”, they will soon be given a newspeak version of “civil liberties”.
Charles Clarke is such an arrogant bully it is staggering to behold. He wants trouble so he can crack down on it. My guess is Tone is scared of him, so it will be interesting when ol’ Slack-jaw takes over. Imagine the good he could do if he were properly directed…like “Gort”.
“Klaatu…barada…nikto…”
Mmm, saw the Blair article in the Observer.
What with that and, today, a home office minister taking to the BBC R5 airwaves to talk up the *cough* massive problem of people trafficking and citing biometric passports and ID cards as a ‘help’ (but no more), I’d say they’re getting mildly concerned that opinion is on the move.
Surely “investment” simply means “spending more money”?
Shouldn’t that be to ‘protect’ liberty rather than to ‘promote’ it
Good point, hadn’t noticed that.
Depends on one’s starting point, I suppose. (I don’t know whether the word came from the Observer journalist writing the report or the tory press release announcing the forum.)
My understanding is:
If you start from the position that ‘civil liberties’ are rights granted by govt – areas of their fiefdom that they have graciously decided not to impose upon – then ‘promote’ would be appropriate.
If you start from the position that ‘Liberty’ is had by individuals as a function of their self-ownership until the govt muscles in and takes it away then ‘protect’ would be appropriate.
Top-down -vs- bottom-up.
Govt as ruler dominating subject people (often claiming to be benign and acting in the subjects’ interest) -vs- govt as creation of the people to provide for their common welfare.
What do you think? Is that a fair understanding?
It’s clear where the Executive, most politicians, most media, and the bulk of mainstream unthinking opinion stand.
PS:
Also, ISTM the “left” tends to talk ‘civil liberties’, whereas the “right” talks some ‘civil liberties’ but also ‘Liberty’. Note too the title of the announced forum – it’s not “Forum for Civil Liberties”. Words are loaded.
clarke said .
“as democracy has advanced so powerfully across the world, other rights become important too.”
This make democracy sound like an invading army. Also is there a limited number of rights that can exist at any one time?As these suposed new rights become important do the older more fundament rights have to be down graded to make way for them?
Robust opinion about Clarke’s attack on media reporting of govt totalitarianism in today’s Telegraph here.
Thats funny if there was ever anyone who i would acuse of doing that to Civil Liberties agenda it would be Clarke & Co.
I just did some quick calculations and the percentage of the population killed in the course of the ‘war’ on terror is 0.0003% of the population. Where as in the course of WW2, (now that was a real war to save freedom and liberty) including the armed forces was 0.96%. So as we can see ‘casulties’ have been very low over the whole course of the ‘war’ so far. In fact less than the number killed on britains roads every month.
whats the point in curtailing our freedom becasue a tiny percentage of the population may get killed next time?
Over the past 800 years countless people have died to allow us the freedoms we posess today and i would prefer to die in a terroist attack(which is of course very very unlikley) than to do the terroists jobs for them and distroy our basic freedoms out of fear.
ROG
i very rarely read any thing in the daily telgraph i agree with but i agreed with that article entirely.