Jack Straw, it is amazing to relate, has been touted as a potential Prime Minister. Who knows, if the implosion of the Brown government gets worse, he might still be in the running for the top job. So it might be useful to realise that among his gifts is one for sublime comedy:
The constitutional expert Vernon Bogdanor has commented that when the history of this era is written, the last 10 years will be seen as heralding a “quiet revolution” in the way in which the UK is governed. He is correct.
Quiet or not, there have been major changes. In case our Jack needs a bit of assistance, here are some of them:
- Emasculation of the House of Lords
- Erosion of the right to trial by jury
- Removal of the double-jeopardy protection in court trials
- Extension of blasphemy laws
- Law enabling the creation of a centralised state database and ID card system
- The passing of more than 3,000 criminal offences
- Anti-social behaviour orders – many of which can be imposed without full due process of law
- Civil Contingencies Act, giving sweeping powers in the case of “national emergencies”
- Erosion of right to hold public demonstrations
- Erosion of rights of private property owners to use their premises as they seek fit: bans on smoking in pubs and restaurants, for example
- European Arrest Warrant
Okay, I think you get the general idea. And on the other side of the balance sheet, what can Straw suggest? He talks about the Freedom of Information Act and EU “human rights” legislation. The former is an improvement but hardly compensates for the list above; the latter is a mish-mash: some of the “rights”, as my sneer-quotes imply, are not rights in the classical liberal sense as acting as brakes on coercion, but rather entitlements, or claims, and which interfere with things like freedom of contract, etc.
The general thrust of policy over the past few years has been towards more regulation of personal behaviour in the fields of health, the environment, family upbringing, smoking and diet. About the only emphatic move in a libertarian direction is on the area of booze: 24-hour drinking; yet the government cannot get itself in a consistent frame of mind when it comes to drugs – and alcohol is a serious health hazard when consumed to excess – so we continue with a largely unwinnable war on drugs, which by the way operates to the detriment of our campaign to undermine the likes of the Taliban, etc, and the poppygrowing druglords of Asia, etc. On sex, yes, the government has lowered the age of gay sexual consent to 16 and permitted gay civil partnerships, but a properly liberal approach would be to get the state out of the business or regulating marriage completely.
Generally, an appalling record. The challenge for the Tories, if they have any gumption, is to reverse it, lock stock and barrel (oh, did I mention that the right to self defence is pretty much dead as well?).
Unbelievable. Just when you think you have seen it all, the gall of these bastards can leave you stunned.
Of course Jack Straw thinks he can be Prime Minister. Why else did he ditch his Himmler specs for contacts? To be honest, given that Brown is a loser, and most of his Cabinet are krill, he looks like the only grown up left. He really could become PM faute de mieux.
He probably means bringing the ECHR directly into British law with the Human Rights Act. This had actually already been effectively part of British law for the past 55 years since the UK signed up to the ECHR (under the Conservatives).
The ECHR isn’t EU legislation, the ECHR came into existence 5 years before the first of the organisations that became the EU.
As you say it is a badly worded miss mash of a few proper rights along with plenty more entitlements, but it was mainly the ECHR that forced the few liberal things (gay equality) that Labour have done upon them.
Sounds like Beria taking over from Stalin.
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
hilarious if it wasn’t so sad
All those bullet points are what we Americans have coming in the next 5-10 years as well. It’s a shame really. But at least we (the US) have some lead time to prepare for it. You poor Brits had it shoved down your throat with no preparation.
I sometimes think we would be better off doing away with rights altogether, and putting the emphasis on responsibilities.
Thus you are responsible for yourself, your family, your community and your state and the chain of responsibilties runs the other way as well.
So you would have responsibilities for your own safety, health, education, welfare etc and for the safety, health, education, welfare etc of your family, community, and state. Similarly your family would have resposibilities for your safety, health, education, welfare etc and so would your community and your state.
Thus when the old bill come to get you for shooting a burglar your defence can be that you were exercising your responsibilities to yourself, family, community and state. Responsibilities that you were uniquely qualified to exercise since you were there at the time and the state was nowhere to be seen.
And the lawyers needn’t worry. All that time (=money) that they spend arguing rights in court can now be spent arguing about responsibilities.
The concept has the additional benefit in that when some slimy toe-rag starts screeching “I’ve got my rights” you can turn round and tell them where to stuff them.
I agree with every word except this:
“Emasculation of the House of Lords”
When I stop to think about it I (think I) know the arguments – checks and balances, etc. But I’m afraid I don’t buy it. To me the reforms of the Lords look like replacement of one unelected elite by another. I recommend Thomas Paine on the subject of hereditary rulers.
Putting this at the top of a list of lost liberties is just utterly alien to my whole way of thinking. It just never would have occured to me that this was a lost liberty. It’s the association with comments like that which remind me why I could never quite call my self a libertarian.
On 24 hour drinking, the justification they put forward was that the 11pm deadline was responsible for the culture of binge drinking and that chucking out time resulted in mayhem on the streets as the drunken yobs spilled out onto the streets. Of course it is much worse in their imaginations than in reality, and people are mostly willing participants. But new labour wanted to put an end to that sort of untidiness.
If only we could have a “continental style” drinking culture went the new labour thinking. Of course there’s nothing with a glass of wine after the theatre. The problem is new labour see people who drink, let alone – get this – smoke, in pubs, that is the majority of the population, as of oiks and chavs.
We are governed by scum to whom honour is a stranger.
A mistake:
About the only emphatic move in a libertarian direction is on the area of booze: 24-hour drinking;
Even you have been spun. Actually the Licensing Act 2003 was a move very much in an anti-libertarian direction. From having magistrates hear license applications openly, it moved to permananet local authority licensing departments with powers to impose plentiful conditions on applicants and with specific statutory duties to promote:
having regard to “(a) its licensing statement published under section 5, and (b) any guidance issued by the Secretary of State under section 182.”
The effect has been massively greater intervention in premises and drinkers conduct, including some astonishing regimes of pseudo-voluntary surveillance.
Moreover the creation of strict liability offences in connection with serving under-age persons, together with the increase in the drinking age (as opposed to the drink-buying age) in public places from 16 to 18, has produced an ID-mania among alcohol retailers.
You might also have mentioned the weakening of Habeas Corpus; the politicization of the police and the civil service; and the the transformation of the BBC into a New Labour mouthpiece.
However, there have been some very positive achievements in the past decade: In no special order – The Queen’s Golden Jubilee; The Queen’s 80th birthday; The Queen Mother’s 100th birthday, followed too soon by her state funeral; and, of course, Princess Di’s funeral—to say nothing of the total eclipse of the sun, the Millennium[i], and the transit of Venus. I’m sure we can all recognize that these could never have happened under any other governing party than New Labour.
[i] I mean the occasion itself, not the eponymous dome in Greenwich, the commissioning of which was a minor breach of taste that any party might have been guilty of.
I really appreciated how bad it was over there when I saw “Man who had sex with bike in court”.
now if he was banging someone else’s bike then hey…maybe he owes them a new seat or something, but what the hell.
our big problems? habeas is not being extended to foreign national enemy combatants (which it never has been). wiretaps of international calls from foreign terror suspects without a warrant….the horror.
And if you think that’s the only problem in the USA, you obviously ain’t actually read the fucking Patriot Act. And if you have, then please cram it you fascist creep.
Tam;
Here’s that very scary bit of legislation
In order to be Prime Muddler, you need a snappy T-shirt with a message. Here’s one for anybody peddling liberty. Lengthily-Interning-Bureaucrats-Equals-Really-Treating-Yourself = LIBERTY!!! (It’s not rocket science!)
Correct me if I’m wrong, but is it not now illegal to criticize homosexuality in Britain? Personally I have nothing against homosexuality, but this more than anything else would give me cause for alarm.
correct me if I’m wrong, but is it not now illegal to criticize homosexuality in Britain?
You’re wrong. Though the dim it’s-political-correctness-gone-mad crowd (often the same people who believe absoultely everything that they don’t like about Britain has its origin in Brussels) think it is. It might however be that expressing disapproval of homosexuality in a work situation amounts to actionable discrimination, which is quite bad enough.
What is gloriously weird is that there are also measures to prevent discrimination on grounds of religion or belief, which, given that a primary substantive theme in most religions is control of sexuality, is going to lead to some unreconcilable clashes.
I disagree (Tom Paine was not a consistent defender of freedom, by the way). The idea of a balanced constitution, of checks and balances, which you dismiss, is a central one to the practical detail of how one goes about resisting tyranny. The fact that a chamber of legislators is hereditary is not, of itself, threatening to liberty provided certain conditions apply. Do not confuse democracy with liberty. What counts is the latter.
I put it on the list because of the checks and balances point mentioned above. I did not put it on the top of the list to signify it was the most important thing; this was not some sort of ranking.
Well maybe Guy. From my understanding, the law has not actually made much of a change for practical, economic reasons, but I hear what you say.
All those bullet points are what we Americans have coming in the next 5-10 years as well.
Wot?
The Senate is not going to be emasculated, trial by jury is protected by the Constitution, ditto protection against double jeopardy. Blasphemy laws are unconstitutional. ASBOs are unconstitutional. Right to assemble is protected.
The rest? Baring the European arrest warrent you will probably get them.
I’ll agree there was scope for reform of the House of Lords, and that is what Blair said he was doing. Once he had effectively eliminated the HoL as a constraint on the Commons however he rather lost interest. Thus we now have no check on the abuse of power by the Commons.
Therefore the emasculation of the House of Lords is a weakening of British liberty.
The House of Lords was a great idea, for much the same reason that the US Supreme Court creates life peers. “What?” You say, “We do not have peerages in the USA!”
I beg to differ. That is exactly what a US Supreme Court Justice is… a life peer… and the House of Lords was largely made up of life (rather than hereditary) peers.
The whole idea is to create a body who are not easy to sway via political pressures because they do NOT hold power at the pleasure of either the great unwashed via the ballot box or the power elite. That is why once appointed a US Supreme Court Justice is damn near impossible to get rid of no matter how unpopular they become… and why the House of Lords was a good idea (and was an even better idea as a limit on the untrammelled power of the Commons when some of the House of Lords was hereditary because that ever further de-politicises them).
The HoL (and SCOTUS) being rather undemocratic is not a bug, its a feature.
Contingcats:
Not really true, though you get shafted in a rather more weaselly manner than us.
1. Double Jeopardy – You have state and Federal courts so there are numerous casesof people who are found no guilty of a specific offense but find themselves nailed for ‘civil rights’ offences later. Rodney King trial for the cops involved anyone?
2. Right to assemble – Sure, except for those people a while back who wanted to protest Bush during a motorcade, and suddenly found themselves in a ‘protest zone’ several blocks away behind a fence.
3. Trial by Jury – dont try insisting on it for traffic offenses or some public order stuff.
4. ASBOs – You likewise have control orders and virtual house arrest; remember dear Britney? ASBOs are crap because they are to broad and not enforced, but so are ‘harrasment’ suits brought by spiteful exes with men having their right to keep and bear arms (2nd ammendment) taken away because she is ‘concerned’
5. Blasphemy laws – Oh, you can say what you like about Christians! Just you be nice to those ‘slims though, or they’ll go after you for ‘islamophobia’ and hate speech, with your ACLU leading the charge.
Dont know about the Senate.
Chris,
The ECHR is indeed not EU legislation, but the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights is (Link). It is the EU Charter which seriously conflates rights and entitlements.
countingcats,
Robert the Biker,
I do. The Senate was ’emasculated’ long, long ago. I trace most of the empowerment of the National government over the government of the United States (as far as I am concerned they are two different things) to removing the state’s government leg in the balance of power.
Originally, in the founder’s constitution, the Senators were appointed by the state’s governments and it was the bulwark preventing power from being stolen by a national government. The 17th amendment destroyed that by turning senators into vote buyers (pork distributors) and the state’s governments were effectively removed from the balance of powers.
This comment thread seems to have been hijacked by a discussion about the American constitution.
Meanwhile, back on topic:
The point you all seem to have missed is the real “quiet revolution” in the government of the UK, which is that the whole thing has been handed over, lock stock and barrel, to the European Union.
That is an organisation, in case you forget, whose true ruling body (the Commission) is appointed, not elected; which cannot be removed or even challenged by any process which the people have any influence over, and which has had its books qualified (ie labelled as fraudulent) by its auditors for thirteen years in a row.
This body now makes 80% of our laws (soon to increase when the One-Eyed Bandit’s not-the-constitution gets rammed down our throats), and will shortly appoint its own President, Foreign Secretary etc. It plans to take over the French and British seats on the UN Security Council, and will no doubt manage to do so in the case of one of them – guess which one.
The complete reduction of our own institutions of government to hollow cyphers – that’s the real quiet revolution. The Mother of Parliaments is now a sham, a shell, a pointless anachronism left in place, one assumes, so that people don’t notice the change.
It may be just a matter of the timing of this post, but Mr. Duffin seems to be right, you are missing the point. From the Brit papers I have just read, your FM and PM have just submitted to the EU and you no longer are a sovereign country in any real sense.
The question is, what if anything are you going to do about it? I publish an online newsletter [no, this is not link-whoring. It goes out by email and spreads by forwarding not linking] and if I may quote a few sentences from tomorrow’s edition:
——————————————————————-
Gentle Readers. Some things to ponder.
I. The “Special Relationship” between the US and Britain is now over. One of the main goals of EU foreign policy, and one of their main complaints against Britain, is that Britain would not line up against us automatically. They will not be allowed to have an independent foreign policy any more.
A) We can no longer count on Brit help or support in anything. They have ranged themselves with our enemies.
B) For those familiar with my Special Projects; SPECIAL PROJECT Catapultae Secundus will need to be updated to include Britain. Working title, Catapultae Tertius. To think that it has come to this. I remind the Gentle Readers of a past poster I created for a demonstration: With the World if we can, With our few loyal Friends if necessary; America alone against the entire world if we must. “NEVER AGAIN [picture of WTC] IS REASON ENOUGH!”
II. I further remind the Gentle Readers of the technical mechanics of the political process called coup d’ etat. They have at the outside 24-72 hours for an organized force to overthrow this government, or the only alternatives will be either full blown civil war or submission. There are Brits, and definitely Scots, who deserve a better fate. Sadly, they are termed “subjects” and not citizens for a reason. There is neither will, nor heart for mass resistance to oppression in Britain.
III. I ask the Gentle Readers, if they know of such deserving people, and if there is no resistance in Britain; to implore them to leave and leave now. Property is of no moment in a time like this. The necessity is getting themselves out. ESPECIALLY if they are of the Jewish faith. You see the short term future of British Jews in what is happening in France now. You see the future of the rest of the Britons in Spain. If they make for Northern Ireland [which is still technically within the UK] they can cross to the Republic of Ireland and go from there to anywhere in the world.
——————————————————————-
If the Democrats here, who would dearly love to do so, were to sign away our Constitution to submit to a foreign dictatorship; every politician in the country with a ‘D’ after their name would shortly be in hiding, shot, or hanging from a tree. And a goodly portion of our military would be joining the citizens because their oath is to the Constitution.
Your chains have been forged. Your fetters await. We will shortly see the mettle of Britons.
Subotai Bahadur
At the risk of a thread hijack, Robert the Biker, I fear that you may have misunderstood a few things.
YADATROT: Was this the Jack Straw everyone’s talking about? Because if not, someone’s being a damn tease.
Labourite statist urges are just a natural extension of their socialist reality. It’s just what they do, somewhat expected of them. Even until the last Straw
More frightening, is the prospect of future shoulder shrugging Heathite Tory endorsement of socialist stateism as cynically spun and crafted by Labour. Where is Maggie when she is needed?
Disappearing rights? Stuff the right to silence, more to the point, who needs peers or your right to a jury trial before your peers. Perhaps someone will get round to burning that musty old Runnymede Charter, after all who needs it now?
A note of optimism I discern, in that talk by Brian Micklethwaite before the annual Libertarian Conference, suggests that the internet might be the bulwark against this hell bent busting of our civil rights. It is pleasing to see real changes in the Libertarian firmament. Laissez Faire books are in the hands of new owners and the Libertarian Alliance is pushing ahead with new means of internet based communications. To most, these things appear small, however out of acorns mighty oaks do grow!
Guy Herbert is quite correct about the licencing “reform” – it is a nightmare.
Generally I can not focus on the idea that there has been a quiet pro freedom revolution in the way Britain is governed.
Well there has been a lot of noise about “Human Rights” Acts and other such (the endless noise and propaganda is what academics mean by “quiet” I suppose) whilst liberty has been in decline.
I knew that most academics could not care less about rising taxes and reglations, to them that is “just economic liberty, or about handing over powers to the E.U. – supporting democratic self government being evil “nationalism”. But I did think they were supposed to be in favour of “civil liberties”.
It seems that some leading academics do not value civil liberties any more than they value any other part of liberty.
The subject is rather depressing.