April 26, 2006
WESTERN SELF-LOATHING
Lazy and deceitful (Charles Clarke, The Guardian April 25, 2006)
Writing on these pages, Jenni Russell claimed that "Tony Blair's administration is removing the safeguards that protect all of us from the whims of a government and the intrusion of a powerful state. It is engaged in a ferocious power-grab." These are ridiculous assertions, unsupported by any hint of understanding of the balance of powers that exist in our society. This and other articles in the press are symptomatic of a more general intellectual laziness that seeks to slip on to the shoulders of modern democratic states the mantle of dictatorial power. Some of this flows from criticism of the US, particularly the policies of the Bush administration, notably in relation to Iraq, but more generally it is in criticism of the response of the US and UK to 9/11. Such criticism fails to understand the immense significance of 9/11.From 1945 until the end of the 20th century it was the fight for democracy against dictatorship that dominated the media and politics. In that climate, the human rights of the individual in relation to the state were pre-eminent. It was in response to those imperatives that the UN conventions and the European convention on human rights were established.
However, as democracy has advanced so powerfully across the world, other rights become important too. The right to go to work safely on the tube. The right not to be killed by someone who has served his sentence for violent crime but remains dangerous. The right to live at home without being disturbed by antisocial behaviour outside the front door. None of these removes the right of any individual to exercise their freedoms in relation to the state. None of them removes the obligation on the state to operate in accordance with its national and international obligations under law. But when we respond, for example, with counter-terror legislation or proposals to control those criminals who are dangerous to society, many in the media retort that we are destroying democracy and constructing tyranny. And too many resort to misrepresentation and deceit to try to strengthen their case.
The left and far too many libertarians have locked themselves into a mindset where decency, public order and civility are viewed as antithetical to freedom.
Posted by Peter Burnet at April 26, 2006 8:31 AMWhat about trial by jury? Is that one of those obscure, irrelevant rights libertarians go on about?
P.S. Apparently the Guardian has changed its opinion of Blair since yesterday.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at April 26, 2006 8:53 AMWhat about trial by jury? Is that one of those obscure, irrelevant rights libertarians go on about?
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at April 26, 2006 10:25 AMOh, and apparently the Guardian has changed its opinion of Blair since yesterday.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at April 26, 2006 10:26 AMPeter,
I agree with you, up to a point. Certailny the hysterical reactions of some libertarians to the Patriot Act are in this vein. Freedoms require a strong foundation in social order and security to be worthwhile. Civility is more of a grey area. Legally forced civility is anathema to freedom, but a society where all civility is abandoned will not be able to maintain order in the long run.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at April 26, 2006 10:57 AMAh, found it! Your mistake here, Mr. Burnet, is to not have enough context. Here's a bit of it for you, in which we discover that these putative efforts at "decency, public order and civility" include letting people off with a warning "for more than 60 other different offences, ranging from arson through vandalism to sex with underage girls".
The point is that whatever the UK government is after, the kind of civil society you are thinking is not it. Therefore I don't see objecting to the activities of the former as having anything to do with objecting to the latter.
P.S. Sorry about all the comments, but I am limited to one link per comment.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at April 26, 2006 11:05 AMI like the way you phrased your analysis, I'm not sure it's quite right, but I like it.
Posted by: Pepys at April 26, 2006 1:45 PMMaybe I'd use "irrelevant" instead of "anti-thetical".
Posted by: Pepys at April 26, 2006 1:47 PM