it's not just the guardian
In the Guardian recently, one Jenni Russell nicely described the creepiness of this government's attitude to civil freedoms. Nothing unusual there I suppose, but the encouraging thing is that it's not just the usual suspects who are getting progressively worried about the way that things are being put in place which will make it easier for democracy to be stifled in this country.
As just one example, the Russell article articulates the same concerns as are held by the Lawyers Christian Fellowship about the powers which the government is wanting to take, which will allow government ministers to change laws "by order, rather than going through parliamentary procedures." [I can't lay my hands on it right now, but a couple of issues ago the LCF had a statement in the English Churchman about this.]
But as has been gleefully pointed out on one of the Guardian's comment pages, it's none other than the crusty old Telegraph itself that's laying into the Home Secretary and the government at large, for introducing "illiberal measures," "undermining our democracy," and in general having a "disregard for our liberties." Strong words from such a source, as a Guardian reader might see it.
Along the same lines, there was an interesting article in my paper copy of today's Scotsman, about Asbos. It was by columnist Peter Jones, and although the piece itself devoted much more space to the supposed plus points of the asbo scheme than to its disadvantages, it was still encouragingly tentatively negative overall. The scenario which he conjured up about the ineffectiveness and counterproductiveness of the orders doesn't seem too implausible - and if it comes about, he says, it would show that "civil libertarians will have been correct that liberties have been needlessly eroded." Apparently it's only 5% of the population who have any concerns at all about civil liberties being compromised by asbos, but you never know - plant a seed of doubt, and hope that the general lack of concern comes more from lack of awareness than real disregard for democratic freedoms.
And on that uncharacteristically optimistic note ...
As just one example, the Russell article articulates the same concerns as are held by the Lawyers Christian Fellowship about the powers which the government is wanting to take, which will allow government ministers to change laws "by order, rather than going through parliamentary procedures." [I can't lay my hands on it right now, but a couple of issues ago the LCF had a statement in the English Churchman about this.]
But as has been gleefully pointed out on one of the Guardian's comment pages, it's none other than the crusty old Telegraph itself that's laying into the Home Secretary and the government at large, for introducing "illiberal measures," "undermining our democracy," and in general having a "disregard for our liberties." Strong words from such a source, as a Guardian reader might see it.
Along the same lines, there was an interesting article in my paper copy of today's Scotsman, about Asbos. It was by columnist Peter Jones, and although the piece itself devoted much more space to the supposed plus points of the asbo scheme than to its disadvantages, it was still encouragingly tentatively negative overall. The scenario which he conjured up about the ineffectiveness and counterproductiveness of the orders doesn't seem too implausible - and if it comes about, he says, it would show that "civil libertarians will have been correct that liberties have been needlessly eroded." Apparently it's only 5% of the population who have any concerns at all about civil liberties being compromised by asbos, but you never know - plant a seed of doubt, and hope that the general lack of concern comes more from lack of awareness than real disregard for democratic freedoms.
And on that uncharacteristically optimistic note ...
posted by cath at
9:57 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home