Nick Clegg: more libertarian than he thinks
Having just listened to a very interesting IPPR podcast from their event last week featuring Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg, it is clear that this thing called ‘liberalism’ matters enormously to him.
He is, perhaps, the Liberal Democrat leader who has given most emphasis to the ‘liberal’ dimension of Liberal Democrat thought. It is hugely refreshing to see a politician willing to go out and make a case for ‘liberalism’ in this way. Clegg is a politician of genuine ideas, and, as one might expect, there is a lot in his speech which liberals in the Labour party (like me) would agree with.
But just what kind of liberal is Nick Clegg?
[Update: Evan Harris MP defends his party in the comments]
continue reading… »
Sorry, but Abu Qatada deserves the compo
‘PREACHER of hate’, ‘truly dangerous individual’, ‘Osama Bin Laden’s ambassador in Europe’; if rhetoric alone were sufficient to secure a criminal conviction, Abu Qatada would currently be in the early years of a very long stretch. Luckily for all of us that live in Britain, any amount of declamation or hearsay is not enough to put somebody behind bars.
Yes, of course this man’s openly expressed views are utterly odious and utterly repugnant. However, until the Thought Police do finally get to run the show in Airstrip One, to endlessly reiterate that undeniable point is to miss what is at stake, namely the quaint insistence that the same rules must apply to all.
Responding to the Convention backlash
The backlash to the Convention on Modern Liberty, as exemplified by David Semple yesterday, seems not about anything the Convention is trying to achieve but because it is being supported by the Countryside Alliance and there are too many Tories (and even a UKIP!) on the panels.
Let’s start with the Countryside Alliance. The CA is about a lot more than fox hunting, and in recent years, played a pivotal role in ensuring the success of the Sustainable Communities Act. The infamous John Jackson, the former chair, is a man I have got to know quite well. Far from being a tweed-jacketed toff, Jackson is a progressive, a solicitor and perhaps one of the best constitutional experts I know. Just read his columns on OurKingdom or his masterful chapter about the rule of law in Unlocking Democracy: 20 Years of Charter 88.
But since we’re on the subject of fox hunting, it has to be said that you can find no better example of Labour’s skewed sense of priorities.
continue reading… »
Who else is to blame?
The former head of the MI5, Stella Remington, is all over the press today:
It would be better that the Government recognised that there are risks, rather than frightening people in order to be able to pass laws which restrict civil liberties, precisely one of the objects of terrorism: that we live in fear and under a police state.
The fact that this government has exploited terrorism fears to curtail our civil liberties is… well, obvious. But it’s no use just blaming the government, there’s a whole industry of newspaper columnists, think-tanks, writers, bloggers and general wingnuts who have also contributed to this state of affairs because of their obsession with finding Islamists Under The Bed.
Who do you think is also to blame? I’ll start with the easy ones: Melanie Phillips and Douglas Murray.
Taking a wider approach to ‘liberties’
I hope to write a few articles discussing different aspects of the Convention on Modern Liberty, beginning with the bedfellows we seem to have chosen – some of which rather dislike one another.
It says something when both animal liberationists – many of whom are also involved with organisations such as the League Against Cruel Sports – and pro-hunting lobbyists can get on the same bandwagon. Why would we jump into bed with this group?
Similarly, why would we allow Conservatives to take stands at a Convention on Modern Liberties? David Cameron has already admitted, on numerous occasions, that he will not be seeking to overturn a lot of the government’s legislation – and indeed, it was the Thatcher government where the trend of legislating for every tabloid headline truly started. Equally, the drive for tougher sentencing and reduced judicial discretion has often come from the Conservative benches.
continue reading… »
Protect your data – Safeguards?
This article is one of a series that intends to inform and highlight the issue of Data/Information Sharing as proposed in the Coroners and Justice Bill currently being put before parliament. This is a serious issue for our individual liberties and is one I, and others, will be writing about over the course of the next month or two. If you have not already heard about this bill, please take a look at our analysis of the Coroners and Justice Bill’s contents, and account of both Liberty and the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) stating their opposition to the law as drafted.
–
We’ve seen the debate, we’ve seen the law. The Coroners and Justice Bill can, in essence, remove the Data Protection Act wherever the government sees fit. Nevertheless, various people have jumped out of the woodwork to claim it is properly safeguarded. However, that the bill is somehow impossible to use in the means in which its laws are actually written down. Safeguards huh? Let’s see just how safe they are really.
continue reading… »
Towards a police state
I don’t often disagree with ScepticIsle, but I do on one point. He says we’re sleepwalking towards a police state. I fear we’re marching there.
From today, it will, in effect, be illegal to photograph policemen, as Kate has pointed out below.
Of course, the government will claim that the intention of this act is to stop terrorists preparing to kidnap policemen. This is phooey.
continue reading… »
Snapping coppers
Yet another one for the government’s ‘helping ourselves to your liberties’ file:
The British Journal of Photography reports that from February 16, the thrill that is photographing coppers acting like arses will be taken from us by new laws ‘that allow for the arrest – and imprisonment – of anyone who takes pictures of officers ‘likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism’.’
The BJP continues:
‘A person found guilty of this offence could be liable to imprisonment for up to 10 years, and to a fine.
‘The law is expected to increase the anti terrorism powers used today by police officers to stop photographers, including press photographers, from taking pictures in public places. continue reading… »
Who should speak at the liberty bloggers event?
On 28th February, at the massive Convention on Modern Liberty, Liberal Conspiracy will be holding a bloggers summit in association with the Guardian Comment is Free. Our aim is to discuss how online tools can be used effectively to protect our civil liberties. The event is open to all attendees, not just bloggers. Speaking at our event will be Phil Booth from No2ID.
Who else would be good? Who or which organisation has used online tools and tricks to spread word of their work and protect civil liberties? Please make your nominations in the comments or even put yourself forward (explaining why). I’d like to get your thoughts on who would be good candidates that have used technology to protect our civil liberties. I’m trying to get someone from MySociety to join us too.
Church of England: No BNP here
Church of England clergy will shortly be forbidden from joining the fascist BNP. Yesterday, the General Synod voted by an overwhelming majority of 322 to 13 for the CoE to become like the prison service or the police in proscribing membership.
It’s a good idea, since it prevents the BNP from using the name of the Church of England at any meetings or six-person rallies they might hold, but it rather misses the point.
Geert Wilders and the search for identity
I’ve written an article, in the Times today, on the good that came out of the Salman Rushdie / Satanic Verses controversy 20 years ago. There’s two additional points I want to make.
The controversy, its aftermath, and the controversies around race and religion that have since followed, are essentially about a search for identity. What I love about Britain is that despite the attempts of racists such as Melanie Phillips, we haven’t been tempted into the authoritarianism and myopia that is prevalent across Europe towards minorities. This search for identity isn’t going go away yet because we still haven’t found the right language to describe ourselves. Simply hoping that everyone will call themselves ‘British’ and that will be the end of that is naive thinking. Life is more complicated, richer and diverse than that for many people across this country. So why put them into label straight-jackets?
Secondly, I find the hysteria surrounding Geert Wilders’ ban as quite hypocritical. The list of people previously banned from coming into the UK include ‘Bounty Killer’, rapper Snoop Doggy Dogg, Louis Farrakhan (Nation of Islam) and Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Would Melanie Phillips or Douglas Murray stand up for the rights of Farrakhan to speak? I doubt it – he’s black.
Douglas Murray makes various unsourced assertions. First, there’s no evidence that a mass protest was planned. Lord Ahmed has denied claims that first surfaced on a right-wing blog. But then Murray needs to push the ‘Angry Muslim Man’ stereotype I guess. Secondly, and this really illustrates how poor his research is, Murray claims: “Wilders attacks Islam, not Muslims.” He forgets that Wilders wants:
the ‘fascist Koran’ outlawed in Holland, the constitution rewritten to make that possible, all immigration from Muslim countries halted, Muslim immigrants paid to leave and all Muslim ‘criminals’ stripped of Dutch citizenship and deported ‘back where they came from’.
Quite the liberal chap isn’t he? It comes as no surprise that Douglas Murray is dishonestly defending someone who echoes the BNP’s policies. What’s more amusing to watch is how confused and hypocritical right-wingers are over such controversies. They want free speech until nasty Muslims say nasty things.
Should Geert Wilders be allowed in?
The vaguely ridiculous figure of Geert Wilders will be no stranger to those on the internet who keep an eye on the politics of our continental cousins. Wilders, leader of the Dutch Freedom Party, has been informed by the government that he will be denied leave to enter the UK under the laws which permit EU member states to deny any citizen entry on the basis of danger to public security. Whatever that means.
His film “Fitna” caused a stir amidst right and left wing circles when it was released last year. I got a chance to watch it last year and frankly I can’t see what the fuss is about. It shows quotes from the Koran and from Islamic fundamentalists besides images of 9/11, the 7/7 bombings and various other attacks by terrorists. Now he has been invited to show it in the House of Lords by (who else?) a UKIP peer.
Whether Wilders should be permitted to come to the UK, whether he should be permitted to show his video and whether or not the thesis of his video is correct are three different matters. To answer these questions, we must begin by categorizing him; is he racist? A fascist? “Just” anti-Islamic? I find the last troubling since I am anti-Islamic, and anti-all organised religions myself, but in no way similar to Geert.
continue reading… »
Protect your data – crucial blows the the government argument
This article is one of a series that intends to inform and highlight the issue of Data/Information Sharing as proposed in the Coroners and Justice Bill currently being put before parliament. This is a serious issue for our individual liberties and is one I, and others, will be writing about over the course of the next month or two. If you have not already heard about this bill, please take a look at our analysis of the Coroners and Justice Bill’s contents and learn why you should be concerned by the legislation in its current form.
—
In the past week the committee stage has started to take place; a session which involves a small number of interested MPs with the aim of deliberating on the legislation put before them, and listening to the views of experts and affected parties. The intention is that through this fact finding a better bill can be finalised for final debate in the House of Commons. For the purposes of Information Sharing the key witnesses (experts) we are interested in are Liberty, who cast a legal eye on the human rights affected, and the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), whose opinion is more practically minded.
continue reading… »
Support Pamela and her two daughters against deportation
Pamela Izevbekhai and her two daughters are under threat of deportation by the Irish government. They fled Nigeria after another daughter died following female genital mutilation and Pamela’s husband’s family planned to forcibly mutilate her remaining two girls. The husband remains in Nigeria but supports his wife and does not want his daughters cut.
Check out ‘Let them stay‘ for how you can support this family .
Below is a you tube telling the families story. Pamela explains the process of FGM and how she tried to get help for her daughter who bled to death after being butchered, all in the name of controlling women’s sexuality.
continue reading… »
Ben Goldacre legally threatened by LBC
Writer of the popular Guardian ‘Bad Science’ column, Ben Goldacre, has been threatened with legal action by LBC radio. As Ben explains, the controversy arose when he took part in a debate on LBC radio around the MMR vaccine scare – a hoax that the media keep running with. He says the whole discussion was so bad, and the presenter Jeni Barnett’s behaviour on air so atrocious, that he posted the radio segment on his blog.
That invited legal threats by LBC radio, which in itself is outrageous. How is a radio segment (now on WikiLeaks) broadcast on air property of LBC? Furthermore, doesn’t it fall under the ‘fair usage’ criteria (or is that only applicable in the US?).
Ben says: “If you felt that this was an irresponsible piece of broadcasting, and an inappropriate use of the public bandwidth – which is licensed to companies such as Global Audio as a privilege by the nation – you may wish to complain about Jeni Barnett’s MMR show of 7th January 2009 to OFCOM.”
A complaint against Jeni Barnett is definitely in order, but what about LBC’s appalling behaviour in not allowing their output to be reproduced elsewhere?
Update: A Sunday Times investigation has now found Wakefield altered the MMR data. What will Melanie Phillips say now?
Third Carnival on Modern Liberty
The third edition of this weekly round-up has been posted to LibDemVoice, prepared by Alix Mortimer.
Next week’s carnival will be hosted by Jennie Rigg and you can make your submissions from this page.
How do we deal with these casualties?
In 2002 Amrit Bhandari was walking through the centre of Chester when two women asked him for money. He refused, but the beggars persisted and one threatened to accuse the 72-year-old of rape if he didn’t hand something over. They never assaulted him, but Mr Bhandari was so panicked by the harrassment that he suffered a heart attack. Rather than try to help the man they had literally frightened to death, the girls took his briefcase and wallet, and fled.
One of the girls sentenced for the manslaughter of Amrit Bhandri was Sarah Campbell. Sarah’s short life was one filled with horrors few of us can imagine; sexually abused throughout her childhood and raped at 15, she became clinically depressed, sought escape through drugs and, by the age of 16, was enslaved by an addiction to heroin. Just one day into her three year sentence, Sarah swallowed a lethal quantity of prescription drugs. She was eighteen years old.
continue reading… »
Do we need a different approach to criminals?
It’s an interesting piece of ancient philosophy that a criminal has broken the rules of society and therefore does not deserve to receive the benefits from society. In our world this philosophy has completely disappeared.
For us, we are all equal in the eyes of the law and the law is equal in all our eyes. A mass murderer in prison serving a life term has equal access to law, medicine and the protection of the police, as any other member of society, regardless of his conviction.
But should left-liberals think about re-evaluating this approach?
continue reading… »
Enough’s Enough campaign
The independent campaign group Enough’s Enough yesterday took out a full page advert in The Times newpaper to highlight a new campaign for more lobbying transparency. It is part of the ‘Alliance for Lobbying Transparency’ coalition, which also includes Spinwatch, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and Unlock Democracy.
In early January the House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee published a report calling for tighter rules on how lobbyists operate and called for a mandatory register of lobbying activity so we can keep a closer eye on how lobbyists operate. Unlock Democracy gave evidence to the Select Committee in the preparation of the report.
You can help the campaign by:
1. Write to your MP and ask them to sign EDM 563: Register of Lobbyists.
2. Join the new Facebook pressure group.
3. Invite your friends to do the same.
(Full ad beneath the fold) continue reading… »
Protect your Data – time is ticking…
So, let’s keep this short and simple. Tomorrow and Thursday the Coroners and Justice Bill enters its committee stage where two days are set aside to take evidence from all relevant parties and whittle the bill down to something that is likely to be sailed through the third reading stage. Fat chance, then, that we can expect any significant changes or removal of the absolutely awful changes to the data protection act; this is why it is extremely important that you keep writing to your MP (it’s a simple online form, takes 5 minutes) and tell them that you oppose any introduction of sections 152-154 of the Coroners and Justice bill.
For those that haven’t been following this, sections 152-154 allow any government minister, to allow the sharing of any personal information to whoever they wish. They can sell our data to foreign companies and governments, they can allow our tax and medical records to be accessible to whoever wishes to see them, they can even theoretically stop the press from publishing information about an individual. How can they do this? Sections 152-154 allow not only any government minister to share data, but to rewrite any law that exists to facilitate what they want to do for the purposes of sharing that data.
continue reading… »
You can read articles through the front page, via Twitter or rss feeds.
» Why don’t MPs pay back tuition fees instead of increasing ours?
» Obama is right to slam BP – and why capitalists should too
» Why does Phillip Blond see civil cohesion as a security issue?
» So what if the Labour candidates went to Oxbridge?
» Last night’s Labour hustings: will it get interesting or turn to torture?
» It’s now down to Ken to win London for Labour
» The Labour people need
» Blog Nation: what would you like to see discussed?
» The Labour leadership’s token contender.. and it’s not Diane Abbott
» In defence of these fraternal nominations
» Is this the end for the socialist left?
|
25 Comments 66 Comments 20 Comments 12 Comments 10 Comments 18 Comments 4 Comments 25 Comments 49 Comments 31 Comments |
|
LATEST COMMENTS » Nick posted on Why don't MPs pay back tuition fees instead of increasing ours? » Bob B posted on Complete tits » Nick posted on Complete tits » Mike Killingworth posted on Complete tits » Mr S. Pill posted on Complete tits » Nick Cohen is a Tory posted on Complete tits » Nick Cohen is a Tory posted on Complete tits » Matt Munro posted on Why I'm defending Ed Balls over immigration » Kate Belgrave posted on Complete tits » Kate Belgrave posted on Complete tits » Nick Cohen is a Tory posted on Obama is right to slam BP - and why capitalists should too » Thomas Hobbes posted on The Daily Mail and "Bongo bongoland" » Matt Munro posted on Complete tits » Matt Munro posted on Complete tits » Lee Griffin posted on Blog Nation: what would you like to see discussed? |
