yet more new laws
The new smoking ban puzzles me. I don't see why the government should be so keen to stamp out smoking in public places, even in the interests of public health. When someone smokes over your food, I appreciate people might find it unpleasant, but does it really constitute something to lay down in law, and fine people thousands of pounds for violating - I'm not convinced. They say the issue was about stopping people dying from passive smoking, but if the government was so keen to promote public health, they might as well go and ban drinking in pubs as well as smoking. It also sits extremely uncomfortably alongside their recent liberalising triumphs, such as legalising mini-brothels and introducing 24-hour drinking licenses, as well as their super-casino project - none of which seem particularly conducive to public health or safety or general welfare.
However, it fits perfectly well with their creepy authoritarian streak. ID cards and a national identity register have nothing to recommend them, either in principle or on practical grounds, but the government has ignored all the opposition (public, legal, technical) and imposed them anyway. And on a compulsory basis, which, incidentally, breaks their own manifesto promise that the scheme would be voluntary. It was very interesting watching Tony Blair trying to argue for them - although he acknowledged that people had civil liberties concerns, he didn't bother to address those concerns even in the smallest way, he just mentioned the phrase "civil liberties concerns" and went straight on to trot out the rhetoric about public safety. He presumably wanted to make it sound like he believed the concerns were unfounded, but in reality, there simply isn't an answer that can make the scheme compatible with civil liberties in principle, and there is no urgent reason in the current national or international situation which would justify suspending our liberty in this area in this (permanent) way.
And now, the latest offence of "glorifying terrorism". What exactly constitutes glorification isn't particularly clear; in fact the only thing that's clear is that our government is rapidly and unashamedly eating away at our civil liberties: and we're not talking about radical lefty dreams here, but ordinary basic fundamental things that you learned about in school as cornerstones of democracy and a free society. A government or a group of people might not agree with the opinions expressed by other people, whether that's a majority of the population or just a minority, but that is no reason to criminalise them. And nor does the government have any right to impose its idea of who or what constitutes "terrorism" on the rest of us. Even non-violent political groups are liable to be classified as terrorists under the powers that the government is now taking to itself through this legislation.
It's bad enough taking away the rights of alleged terrorists (in things like the right to a fair and open trial, the right not to be detained without charge, the presumption of innocence), but this is even a step further, infringing the rights of everyone, suspected terrorist or not, to express support of opposition to governments of all sorts of countries (including Mugabe's Zimbabwe, eg), if they wish to do so. Giving up our freedoms in the name of security is self-defeating, and a price too high to pay.
However, it fits perfectly well with their creepy authoritarian streak. ID cards and a national identity register have nothing to recommend them, either in principle or on practical grounds, but the government has ignored all the opposition (public, legal, technical) and imposed them anyway. And on a compulsory basis, which, incidentally, breaks their own manifesto promise that the scheme would be voluntary. It was very interesting watching Tony Blair trying to argue for them - although he acknowledged that people had civil liberties concerns, he didn't bother to address those concerns even in the smallest way, he just mentioned the phrase "civil liberties concerns" and went straight on to trot out the rhetoric about public safety. He presumably wanted to make it sound like he believed the concerns were unfounded, but in reality, there simply isn't an answer that can make the scheme compatible with civil liberties in principle, and there is no urgent reason in the current national or international situation which would justify suspending our liberty in this area in this (permanent) way.
And now, the latest offence of "glorifying terrorism". What exactly constitutes glorification isn't particularly clear; in fact the only thing that's clear is that our government is rapidly and unashamedly eating away at our civil liberties: and we're not talking about radical lefty dreams here, but ordinary basic fundamental things that you learned about in school as cornerstones of democracy and a free society. A government or a group of people might not agree with the opinions expressed by other people, whether that's a majority of the population or just a minority, but that is no reason to criminalise them. And nor does the government have any right to impose its idea of who or what constitutes "terrorism" on the rest of us. Even non-violent political groups are liable to be classified as terrorists under the powers that the government is now taking to itself through this legislation.
It's bad enough taking away the rights of alleged terrorists (in things like the right to a fair and open trial, the right not to be detained without charge, the presumption of innocence), but this is even a step further, infringing the rights of everyone, suspected terrorist or not, to express support of opposition to governments of all sorts of countries (including Mugabe's Zimbabwe, eg), if they wish to do so. Giving up our freedoms in the name of security is self-defeating, and a price too high to pay.
posted by cath at
6:03 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home