Thread: Most eloquent rant ever on loss of civil liberties

Further to my last, since I can't seem to find the edit button??? -

With such apparently unsubtle censorship occurring in OUR press, how can anyone criticise the Chinese for their more open censorship fo the internet, without being hypocritical?

If this debate gains any momentum, as I hope it will, be prepared for criticism of Mr Pullman, trying to undermine his stance, diminish the strength of his arguments and the worth of his literary work.

Originally Posted by hogspawn

Hmm

good article, but I must admit some of those laws are very good and useful pieces of law.

The Protection from Harassment acts prevents stalkers from stalking, or ex partners from harassing their exes.

The Anti social behaviour act also gives powers to shut down crack houses which are causing misery in otherwise nice areas.

but the rest of it is true.

All these pieces of legislation may have some praiseworthy and compelling aspects but these act as decoys for whole rafts of repressive and authoritarian measures to slip in 'under the radar'.

I would hope and expect any future Tory government to review all the legislation mentioned by Philip Pullman and repeal those sections that impinge on our civil liberties.

My own inclination, now, is to steel myself to go through all those pieces and try to find the relevant sections; perhaps Iolis, being a wiser commentator, could give us all some pointers in that direction.

Armed with those facts we then send letters to MPs and MEPs and media, highlighting the censorship of Philip Pullman's piece and keep up a steady barrage until someone answers. At the very least we couldn't be accused of doing nothing and might actually sting someone into action!

There is a slightly easier-to-read transcript on the Convention on Modern Liberty Site: LINK

Poor old China. It can be blamed for the ill's of the World and for some reason compared to the loss of our civil liberties. Like Smartascarrots, I have lived in China and always felt totally safe. I haven't had to bribe anyone nor has anyone in authority bullied me. In fact I see the civil liberties increasing there while ours are decreasing. But that wouldn't make a good rant. To raise the rights and expectations of the Chinese needs to be done gently. Look at history for your answer. I believe a great deal has been done over the last twenty five years to improve the lot of the Chines citizen.
Perhaps we sould concentrate our thought on the loss of our liberties and let the Chinese get on with their own business. At the moment the Tories don't appear to be any help in this area and so may drive people to vote for right wing parties. That is of much more concern.

Originally Posted by OldAdam

Originally Posted by hogspawn

Hmm

good article, but I must admit some of those laws are very good and useful pieces of law.

The Protection from Harassment acts prevents stalkers from stalking, or ex partners from harassing their exes.

The Anti social behaviour act also gives powers to shut down crack houses which are causing misery in otherwise nice areas.

but the rest of it is true.

All these pieces of legislation may have some praiseworthy and compelling aspects but these act as decoys for whole rafts of repressive and authoritarian measures to slip in 'under the radar'.

I would hope and expect any future Tory government to review all the legislation mentioned by Philip Pullman and repeal those sections that impinge on our civil liberties.

My own inclination, now, is to steel myself to go through all those pieces and try to find the relevant sections; perhaps Iolis, being a wiser commentator, could give us all some pointers in that direction.

Armed with those facts we then send letters to MPs and MEPs and media, highlighting the censorship of Philip Pullman's piece and keep up a steady barrage until someone answers. At the very least we couldn't be accused of doing nothing and might actually sting someone into action!

All legislation impinges on civil liberties to some extent, it's when the balance has slipped too far that the problems occur.

the acts I mentioned needed brining in and have been used to good effect. Yet much of the other legislation brought in was unnecessary. Something like 3000 new laws have been brought in over 10 years.
Thats just daft

Originally Posted by Fifth_Columnist

There is a slightly easier-to-read transcript on the Convention on Modern Liberty Site: LINK

Oh jeez, it's the loony left "civil liberties" lot (i.e. completely uninterested in the liberties of people who disagree with them):

http://www.modernliberty.net/what/why

Why?
From Anthony Barnett, Phil Booth, Shami Chakrabarti, Henry Porter, Stuart Weir

[snip]

We are making Modern Liberty a convention not a conference. We want to bring as many people together to see what common ground can be reached in defence of our freedoms. The Guardian is the main media partner. The Rowntree Reform and Charitable Trusts and the Rowntree Foundation are initial supporters. A wide range of organisations are joining the event from across the political spectrum.

Fundamental rights and freedoms are common to us all. The Universal Declaration recognises ‘the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family as the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world’. In Britain such values have an even longer history. We are indeed the inheritors of an inspiring tradition of liberty.

At the same time technical advances from information technology to explosives and the threats of catastrophic climatic change have altered the framework of power and fear.

This calls for a renewal of our democratic self-confidence. This is the purpose of the Convention on Modern Liberty. Whether you agree or not we hope you will join us to debate these issues

(my bold indicating the loony left people/organisations/platforms)

Soooo, not Liberty as Adam Smith would have known it, but "Modern" Liberty.

I guess that's Modern like "Modern" Art then...

Originally Posted by stoatman

Oh jeez, it's the loony left "civil liberties" lot (i.e. completely uninterested in the liberties of people who disagree with them):

Yes - but it has a transcript of Pullman's speech that is easy to read!

Further: from a comment to the speech:

John Levett says:
28 February, 2009 at 9:15 pm
I was interested to hear both Philip Pullman and Brian Eno make reference to environmental issues in their presentations today. Unfortunately, my stream was interrupted but I believe there also a well-received request from an audience member to link the issue of climate change to the debate.

I was slightly alarmed by this development and would like to suggest that it is a mistake to assume that all of us who are concerned about the growth of the state are also persuaded by the alleged climate consensus. Liberty and freedom of expression are fundamental to us all regardless of where we stand on other issues. Given the general acquiescence – whether positive or apathetic – to the measures that we find so alarming, it is clear that we will need to work hard for support: if we appear to be a Trojan Horse for the environment, we exacerbate the risk of fracturing our support.

I propose that the environment should be left to a more appropriate forum to better enable us to focus on the issue that brought us all together.

"A trojan horse for the environment..."

It's the bloody watermelons again! AARRRGGGHHH!

Originally Posted by Fifth_Columnist

Originally Posted by stoatman

Oh jeez, it's the loony left "civil liberties" lot (i.e. completely uninterested in the liberties of people who disagree with them):

Yes - but it has a transcript of Pullman's speech that is easy to read!

Aye, but he was giving it at an event hosted by that lot, which taints him somewhat in my eyes even though the general gist of it was spot on.

Originally Posted by hogspawn

Hmm

good article, but I must admit some of those laws are very good and useful pieces of law.

The Protection from Harassment acts prevents stalkers from stalking, or ex partners from harassing their exes.

The Anti social behaviour act also gives powers to shut down crack houses which are causing misery in otherwise nice areas.

but the rest of it is true.

I would have to concede to you the point you make in respect of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 which was originally intended for the reasons you state as well as 'neighbours from Hell'.

The House of Lords extended that application of the Act to workplace bullying by managers. However, as with all laws it has a use which extends into unexpected and unintended areas.

The scenario is that you are are driving home from work. You stop at a set of traffic lights. You see a woman spit at the ground in front of a policeman. You whip out your mobile phone and film the officer push her to the ground and kick her several times in the head and body while his colleague places her hands behind her back and handcuffs her.

You are spotted. You wind down your window for the officer who then orders you to hand over your mobile phone 'cos taking photos of cops is illegal'. You refuse!

The 1997 Act was recently further extended by the legislature under section 125(a) Serious Crime and Police Act 2005 which inserted a new section 1(1A) into the 1997 Act. This makes it an offence to pursue a course of conduct which (a) involves harassment of two or more persons and (b) which he knows or ought to know involves harassment of those persons and (c) by which he intends to persuade any person (whether or not one of those metioned in para 1 above) (i) not to so something he is entitled or required to do or (ii) do something he is not under any obligation to do.

This provision is wide enough to catch any individual who knocks on the door of the elderly and vulnerable and obtain their signature to extortionate credit agreements.

Ex hypothesi, it is also broad enough to capture a situation as described in the narrative although, as yet, there is no case which decides the point.

Section 1(1)(b) Human Right Act 1998 incorporates Articles 1 to 3 of the first protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights and Funndamental Freedoms (1953) into domestic law. Protocol 1 protects the right to the peaceful enjoyment of property without inteference by the state. Under section 6(1) of the 1998 Act, it is unlawful for a public authority to act (including a failure to act) in a way which is incompatible with convention rights. The Police are not excluded from the definition of 'a public authority'. Under section 7 a person who claims that a public authority has acted or intends to act in way which is made unlawful under section 6((1) may bring proceedings which may, under section 8, result in the award of damages or any other remedy in the discretion of the court.

Since no provision is made to bring a stand-alone action under the Human Rights Act, the local Police Authority could conceivably face an action under it when combined with an offence under section 1(1A) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 which is both a crime as well as a tort.

I fail to see how his asking for the mobile is a 'course of conduct' and how is the officer harassing two or more people in order to make the driver hand over his mobile?

But you are right, the danger with any legislation when not specific enough is that until caselaw has been established it is open to (mis)interpretation and use for a purpose it was not intended.

The answer to the first part of your question is at section 1(2) which is an objective test. A person is guilty of harassment within section 1 if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think that the course of conduct amounted to or involved harassment.

The answer to the second part of your question is found within section 7(3)(b) which was inserted by the SOCPA amendment which holds that conduct on one occasion in relation to each person is sufficient for liability under section 1 while under section 7(3A), again, inserted by SOCPA, where there is only one victim, it is sufficient that the person whose conduct is called into question is aided, abetted, counselled or procurred by another - in this case, the collegue of the Policeman who assisted.

I trust this is the answer you did not want to hear.

Originally Posted by stoatman

Originally Posted by Fifth_Columnist

Originally Posted by stoatman

Oh jeez, it's the loony left "civil liberties" lot (i.e. completely uninterested in the liberties of people who disagree with them):

Yes - but it has a transcript of Pullman's speech that is easy to read!

Aye, but he was giving it at an event hosted by that lot, which taints him somewhat in my eyes even though the general gist of it was spot on.

But surely theres no sense in preaching to the converted?

I thought his finishing paragraph was quite profound. Never a truer word etc.

Now what have these things to do with freedom and the threats to freedom we have been hearing about today? What has the virtue of delight to do with virtue of liberty. Everything. A nation whose laws express fear and suspicion cannot sustain delight for very long; joy does not flourish in the garden of anxiety. The society these laws seem to be designed to bring about is one of institutionalised paranoia of furtive hatred and low-level panic, every scrap of delight and gladness we can find is a blow against that fear; every instance of civility and kindness we come across is a clean wind dispersing a foul vapour. Every example we cherish of imaginative play, of the energy of creation and of the enchantment of art and the wonder of science is a weapon in the arsenal and I say weapon, advisedly: we have a fight on our hands. “I will not cease from mental fight�, said William Blake, and this is the fight he meant. The fight to defend, to restore, and to sustain the virtue which is not now but could so easily be, the natural behaviour of the state.

We are a better people than our government believes we are; we are a better nation.

For those of you who are intrested in the general ongoings of the convention Old Holborn (A Libertarian social blogger who was in attendance) gives his summary HERE (CLICKY)

I read the speeches that he makes reference to last night and was someone dismayed as to the content. Some labour MP in praise of CCTV would you believe? His roundup makes it all tie in.

I suspect that Pullman's article appealed to those who wouldn't consider themselves to be political creatures, the attendees probably shaped his own speech.

"Free speech is long gone, I'm fighting for free thought"