Nov 07 2006
On liberty.. again.
The usual disclaimer: This is a political post, not a musical one. Politically apathetic people (aka the ignorant) need read no further.
Tony Blair in yesterday’s Telegraph:
The case for ID cards is a case not about liberty but about the modern world. .. I know this will outrage some people but, in a world in which we daily provide information to a whole host of companies and organisations and willingly carry a variety of cards to identify us, I don’t think the civil liberties argument carries much weight.
I’ve written about the threat the UK faces from ID cards in the past, but Blair’s commentary in yesterday’s Telegraph has made me far more afraid than I was previously. For Blair to argue that civil liberties are essentially a thing of the past that have no importance in the modern world just demonstrates how far removed from reality this man has become. There are a hundred other reasons why ID cards are a bad idea, but civil liberties are the most pressing. For a political leader to simply dismiss the concerns of anyone who believes they are a threat is at the very least patronising and at worst downright offensive.
“We” may also provide daily information to companies, but all of that is voluntary. I have never held a store loyalty card in my life, nor would I, because I’m concerned about the amount of data that can be collected on them. I’m not bothered about them though because of the key word: voluntary. I’m not forced to have a Tesco card to shop at Tesco. My wallet consists of two bank cards, a driving licence, a cinema pass and a card with my signature that allows me to access my postbox. None of these cards contain a fingerprint or iris scan. None of these cards are linked to giant cross-departmental databases where hundreds of different groups can access my information. The line of thinking that because someone gives their details to Tesco that the National Identity Register must be okay is almost too ridiculous for words.
Still, what more should we expect from this government?
This is the government that has outlawed protest anywhere within half a mile of Parliament.
This is the government that has banned protests anywhere near it’s party conference.
This is the government that will ban smoking in all public places from next year, including bus stops and railway station platforms.
This is the government that wants to ban “violent internet pornography” (for which it offers no definition), even though there is no logical case for it.
This is the government that has banned fox hunting, even though it had to use a loophole in Parliamentary law to do so.
This is the government that attempted to outlaw the “inciting of religious hatred”, again with offer any definition of what this would entail.
This is the government that has abolished free speech by introducing law that prohibits the “glorification” of terrorism, while once again offering no definition of what this means.
This is the government that wanted to detain people for up to 90 days without charge, and then accepted 28 days as a “comprimise” when it was rejected in Parliament.
This is the government that has introduced “control orders”, a way of sidestepping human rights legislation to allow the restrictions of people who have been charged with no crime.
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security. - Benjamin Franklin
It’s a pretty pathetic situation when I have to look to the Conservatives to defend my civil liberties.
Yes, I’ll climb down off of my high horse for now. I’m going to keep coming back to this for as long as the threat of this ID cards legislation hangs over our heads though. It’s too important not to. But I’ll get to the music for a while again now. Here’s an (apt) mp3:
MP3 Camera Obscura - Let’s Get Out Of This Country
Related Posts
I enjoy your political rants; it’s one of the things allows me to consider this blog one of my favorites, though it isn’t necessarily my favorite blog musically. Although I live in the US, I am sincerely disconcerted the prospect of that sort of legislation in any democratic country.
“This is the government that will ban smoking in all public places from next year, including bus stops and railway station platforms.”
..from personal experience at railway stations, I’m not too cut up about that particular one ;)
‘First they came for the smokers, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a smoker.
Then they came for the Brompton Bike owners, and by that time, there was no one left to speak for me.’
Don’t say I didn’t warn you ;)
The sick bastards! ;)
Though to be fair, first they came for the people who expose themselves in public. Then the murderers. I don’t really see how banning smoking is any different to either of those things.
Plus I think either way, ban or no ban, freedoms are being taken away. Consider:
1. Smoking in public is fine. If non-smokers don’t like it, they are free to stay at home and breathe.
2. Smoking in public is not fine. If smokers don’t like it, they are free to stay at home and smoke.
I think in each case there is the same balance between freedom and restriction, except the subset of society with less freedom is switched in each case - so why the arbitrary decision to support #1? The only way I can decide between the two is based on health, and perhaps the principle that to smoke is a positive choice, so if you want to do it you are the one that should be inconvenienced.
Well first of all, I should probably point out that I didn’t want to get too hung up on the smoking issue. I only included it as one of many freedoms that are gradually being lost thanks to this government.
That said, I do agree with your logic to a certain degree, surprisingly enough. The main point though is that I’m not arbitarily supporting option #1. While I’m personally not bothered by smoking in public, I understand that some people may not want to be around it. I’m all for a banning of smoking in workplaces, and I’ve got no problem with businesses banning smoking from their premises.
I take exception to a completely blanket ban put forth by this government with no real thought. Ok, so you don’t want to be around smokers, that’s fine. Can you tell me why those little smoking shelters in hospital grounds are a problem to you? They become illegal under this ban. Can you tell me why in private clubs it has to become illegal? Surely a private club should act in the same way as a private residence?
Without a government ban, we would have had a pretty decent scenario of some places allowing smoking and others that don’t. Everyone wins, and nobody loses. The currently system just takes it from one extreme to the other.
Oh, and I take it I’m the only one that finds it amusing I inhale more smoke from the small hoarde of people immediately outside the door of the Queens Head now than I ever did when sharing the same room with them. No real argument behind that, I just find it funny.
I guess I just think without the ban, most pubs wouldn’t have stopped smoking. Right or wrong, I like the fact that they have. Little shelters are fine by me, as are private clubs. Even those cancer buses they have in Japan would be cool..
And regardless of your experiences outside the Queens Head, I do find I can go out now and not go home reeking of an ash-tray afterwards. I think previously you just get used to it when you’re in the same room as them. Now that you’re used to breathing oxygen in a pub, I’m sure it’s just that it’s all the more noticably irritating when you walk outside past the fumes :)