14 May 2015.
The Abolition of Liberty in the Name of Security
Here we are again with a government talking about laws
to control ‘extremism’, a state of mind defined by failure to show enough
respect for ‘British values’.
These ‘values’ apparently include ’democracy’ and ‘the
rule of law’.
Please see my comments on the previous attempt to move
in this direction, including alarming plans for the preliminary vetting of
student meetings, laudably scuttled by (among others) Nick Clegg, whose good
deeds should be acknowledged http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2015/01/dont-like-the-pc-mob-well-now-that-makes-you-a-terror-threat.html
In this article I pointed out : ‘Institutions will be
obliged to promote ‘British values’. These are defined as ‘democracy, the rule
of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance for those with
different faiths and beliefs’. ‘Vocal and active opposition’ to any of these is
now officially described as ‘extremism’.
Given authority’s general scorn for conservative
Christianity, and its quivering, obsequious fear of Islam, it is easy to see how
the second half will be applied in practice. As for ‘democracy’, plenty of
people (me included) are not at all sure we have it, and wouldn’t be that keen
on it if we did.’
A few months earlier, I had argued that the nebulous
concept of ‘extremism’ could not possibly be of any use in legal or political
matters, having no objective meaning. I suspect the ‘definition’ I quote above
was cooked up in response to such criticisms.
Here, in any case, was my argument in June last
year:
…and I stand absolutely by it now.
I often ask readers to answer this question.: How do you
think a totalitarian regime could or would be installed in a free society such
as ours? Is it more likely that it will arrive in some thunderclap, as
black-uniformed fanatics seize the state, or that it will grow in our midst by
small and popular increments, introduced on the pretext of saving us from a
supposed ‘terrorist’ threat?
It remains absolutely the case that, with the clear
exception of incitement to violence, speech should be free. The law is involved
only after a crime has been committed and in a free society cannot and must be
used to pre-approve publication or speech. Stifling free speech is the staircase
down to slavery. The moment we are having our speeches and articles scanned for
‘extremism’ by policemen we are out of the world of freedom and deep in the
territory of tyranny ( Social Democrat public meetings in 19th century Germany could only be held in the
presence of a uniformed police officer monitoring the speeches – do you want
this?).
There are good practical reasons for this as well. If
political fanatics are permitted to organise and publish in the open, we will be
much better able to know what they are doing and to observe their interaction
with actual men of violence. If we seek to restrict the expression of opinion by
law, we will merely ensure that these interactions will take place in secret,
where we cannot observe them.
I am shocked that any educated British person is not
instantly revolted by this, as I am. This is one of the reasons why I noted the
other day that the country I grew up in was both more honest and better-educated
than the one we now live in. I don’t suppose even one member of the current
Cabinet even knows who John Hampden was or what the Trial of the Seven Bishops
was, or why it matters, or has more than the vaguest idea of the Petition of
Right, the Bill of Rights and the whole thrilling period of our national history
during which this country decisively rejected arbitrary power, secret courts,
torture, and threw out continental autocracy in favour of liberty under the
law.
‘British values’ indeed. ‘British values’ might as well
be a taste for instant mashed potato, annual holidays in the sun, bad TV comedy
and gassy lager.
These ‘anti-terrorist’ oafs know no poetry and no
history and they do not love their country, indeed they barely know where and
what it is .
How about this : ‘And whereas also by the statute called
'The Great Charter of the Liberties of England,' it is declared and enacted,
that no freeman may be taken or imprisoned or be disseized of his freehold or
liberties, or his free customs, or be outlawed or exiled, or in any manner
destroyed, but by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the
land.’
That’s a British value, if you like. As is this ; ‘when
complaints are freely heard, deeply consider'd and speedily reform'd, then is
the utmost bound of civill liberty attain'd, that wise men looke for.’
And this, too ;
‘It is not to be thought of that the Flood
Of British freedom, which, to the open sea
Of the world's praise, from dark antiquity
Hath flowed, "with pomp of waters,
unwithstood,"
Roused though it be full often to a mood
Which spurns the check of salutary bands,
That this most famous Stream in bogs and
sands
Should perish; and to evil and to good
Be lost for ever. In our halls is hung
Armoury of the invincible Knights of old:
We must be free or die, who speak the tongue
That Shakespeare spake; the faith and morals
hold
Which Milton held.—In every thing we are
sprung
Of Earth's first blood, have titles
manifold.’
Or something like that, anyway. Chuck it,
May.
