Atu XVIII



Blogroll



Atu XVIII
UK Civil Liberties
This blog has moved to http://trevor-mendham.com/atuxviii/wp/




Wednesday, June 27, 2007  

Tony Blair: From Hope to Hate

I remember election night 1997. I stayed up into the early hours of the morning cheering as the extent of the Tory defeat became apparent. I clearly remember the joy of seeing Michael Portillo defeated by Stephen Twigg. The next morning the sun was shining, Tony Blair was in Downing Street and I really believed that things could only get better.

My one regret was that I couldn't be with Tony Blair to shake his hand.

Where did it all go so wrong?

It began with the economy. During the election Blair had used the rhetoric of the Tories - but few of us believed him. We assumed it was just an election ploy, that he'd discard it once he was Prime Minister. Yet instead he embraced the language of the unfettered market and failed to reverse any of the disastrous Tory privatisations.

Still there were some high points: the introduction of a minimum wage, devolution for Scotland, incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK law. So I was a little disappointed with some aspects of Blair's government but generally happy.

Then came 911 and the authoritarian wing of the Blair government seized on it as an opportunity. The talk of compulsory ID Cards began almost immediately.

911 was probably the defining moment of Blair's regime. Would he stand up to authoritarians like David Blunkett and defend our liberties, or would he sacrifice them on the altar of supposed security? He chose the latter - and lost my support. The UK derogated from Article 5 of the ECHR, undermining Blair's greatest achievement and paving the way for internment without trial.

Following 911 George W Bush decided to invade Iraq. It was obvious that 911 had nothing to do with Iraq but simply provided an excuse. For Blair to go along with this seemed unbelievable. The idea that he might do so without a UN resolution - collaborate in an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation - was mind-boggling. I was one of the million people who marched through the streets of London in a protest that Blair simply ignored.

As predicted, the invasion of Iraq didn't make the world a safer place - it made it a much more dangerous one. Blair's response was a steady erosion of our civil liberties, the worst being the ongoing plan to impose compulsory National Identity Cards and a huge, intrusive National Identity Register (NIR).

Apparently emboldened by his success in exploiting the terrorist threat, Blair - initially through Blunkett - extended his attacks on traditional freedoms into other areas: removal of the double jeopardy protection, attempts to restrict the right to trial by jury , constant attacks on the presumption of innocence and much, much more. In the name of protecting British society Blair has ripped up some of its most important foundations - the freedoms which people spent centuries fighting for have been discarded in a decade.

So this afternoon I'll be watching Tony Blair drive to Buckingham Palace and resign as PM. I'll be cheering as loudly as I was ten years ago.

My only regret will be that I can't be with Tony Blair to spit in his face.

Technorati:

Labels: ,



Post to: Digg del.icio.us Newsvine Reddit

Comments:

Anonymous Dave said:
Lots to comment on here, e.g.

1. Who is this "us" and "we" in paragraph 4 and why do you think it right for candidates to lie in their election manifestos? I think you were rather more optimistic than was merited by the manifestos and the past behaviour of the man. I don't think I had such high hopes, which perhaps accounts for why I don't feel so betrayed.

2. Paragraph 6 addresses the tricky question of what to do with foreign terrorist suspects who (a) have no right to stay in the UK and (b) cannot be sent to their country of origin for fear of torture or unfair trials. Personally, I do not believe they should be let free in our country and I disagree with the judges' ruling that foreigners with no right of residence should be let free. It was the judges' ruling that led to the existence of control orders that can be used against UK citizens too.

3. You've mentioned Double Jeopardy before. I think this was a good change. It is limited to serious crimes where substantial new evidence becomes available. It can't be used to persecute people or to try them again and again until a jury gives the "right" answer. The alternative is to let a murderer or rapist go free despite possibly convincing evidence against them.

4. So much hatred. I wondering whether your hatred is bad for you or my scepticism is bad for me. At least you're campaigning, which is more than me.
 


Blogger Trevor said:
"Who is this "us" and "we" in paragraph 4"
Well I originally typed "everyone" but knew someone would pick me up on that. I suppose I should have gone further and said "Most people with whom I discussed it at the time" :-)


"why do you think it right for candidates to lie in their election manifestos"
There's an issue about the whole manifesto thing and whether a party based system really gives a government a mandate for the *entire* bundle of policies in their manifesto. But the bottom line is that, right or wrong, we (=most of the people with whom I discuss it) *expect* politicians to at least warp the truth.


Foreign terror suspects:
Well, if they're known then they should be under 24*7 surveillence - blatant surveillence so that no terrorists want to go near them.

And this will probably surprise you but I would support enforced repatriation in extreme cases. If that means renegotiating certain treaties then so be it. It wouldn't be a good option but would be a lesser evil by far.


Double jeopardy:
I just can't help putting myself in the position of someone innocent but wrongly accused then cleared - who knows that for the rest of the life they will have to live with the possibility of a retrial. And experience tells us how special cases for really serious crimes tend to spread into common practice (eg taking DNA samples). I predict that double jeopardy rules will disappear almost completely in a few decades.

In this case, allowing a tiny number of criminals to walk free is IMO the lesser evil.


"So much hatred"
I'm not proud of that, but I've had to accept it. Unhealthy as it is that's the way I feel. The things he's done are counter to my world-view and ethical principles in very fundamental ways, he's pressed some very powerful buttons in me.
 


Anonymous Dave. said:
The creep of keeping more and more DNA samples is something I defiitely find threatening and worrying. (That's the beauty of this government - so many evils to choose from!).

Regarding Double Jeopardy, I don't know how I would feel if I were false accused and vindicated. From an outside viewpoint, I find it hard to imagine how anyone could find substantial new evidence to implicate an innocent person, but it might not feel that way to the person involved. Still, at least they would be found innocent and free to go about their life - the law would not be hindering them in any way.
 


Post a Comment



<< Home






All material copyright © 2006-2007 Trevor Mendham. Thanks to Judes for the original Atu XVIII card artwork.


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?




NO2ID


Take the PledgeNO2ID Pledge