The second session of the Convention on Modern Liberty in Cardiff featured a selection of speakers from across Welsh public life. Some of the speakers comments included: Kirsty Williams, Welsh Lib Dem leader, warned of the dangers of small changes happening now becoming bigger changes later, and a need to establish the rights our forefathers fought for. Dr Peri Roberts, of the Cardiff School of European Studies, spoke about defending liberty against ’piecemeal errosions’, and to consider the difference between restrictions and regulations of liberties. Dr Urfan Khaliq, academic lawyer at Cardiff Law School, believes liberty is being used as a ‘political football’ and the importance of an informed, balanced and intelligent debate. Our final speaker, John Osmond, of the Institute of Welsh Affairs, opened his speech by declaring that he was optimistic, and that Wales has a unique opportunity to defend liberties through the Welsh Assembly.
Cardiff: A Welsh Perspective on the Future of Freedom
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Responses to “Cardiff: A Welsh Perspective on the Future of Freedom”
Leave a Reply
THE CML'S SOCIAL NETWORK
 |
 |
 |
 |
A panel of speakers gave short analyses of the theoretical position: what we are against and what an important struggle it is to be against them.
For those who chose to attend this event, this was telling us things we know.
The speakers were good of their kind. Academics, lawyers, politicians. Not brilliant. None had fire or charisma, or offered practical advice. But they were pleasant enough.
However in an event about salvaging liberty, defending democracy, where was the democracy?
“Audience participation” consisted of a few hurried minutes for “questions.” The “questions” format used forces any guest contribution to defer to the superiority of the speakers, in terms of seeking their expertise, or asking for their august opinion. There is no scope for the skills, strategies and ideas of those attending. They might as well read the speeches off a website.
What was worse was that even this poor excuse for “participation” was botched. Every single comment from the floor was rapidly disrupted and interrupted with urges to stop speaking/ come to the point/ summarise as a question. This is not the way to empower amateur speakers.
One member of the audience protested in an admirably brief succinct style, placing criticism that the event was not democratic in its process, and this was not appropriate to a project raising the issue of liberty. Although there were multiple approving murmurs from the floor the objector was told in a most haughty and disapproving manner that “we are not going to engage with THAT!”
Funny, we thought being democratic was exactly what we were there to engage with.
Another commentator raised the issue of going further than mere complaint about attacks on liberty or theorising: he asked ‘What are we going to DO about this, given that we have seen that party politics has failed us and failed us badly.”
This together with the other person mentioned who had pointed up the lack of democracy in the event itself, was met with a strong degree of approval from the floor. With a fair amount of question time left to go there was no reason not to hear a solid answer which was after all the crux of the matter for everyone attending.
The answer from the panel was disingenuous: to speak to your MP or local candidate personally, decide if they are trustworthy, and if so, vote for them.
This completely missed the point of the question: that voting and party politics has shown it can do little about the destruction of liberty. That is why we had come to this event – to find something else.
The response also failed to address issues like – what if there is no political candidate who is trustworthy? – a common enough situation!
What of the many who are effectively disenfranchised by a high majority in their constituency making their vote meaningless.
Finally advice the rely on the vote ignore the routine political habit of election promises melting like ice cream in the summer’s day of election success.
But we cannot really expect politicians invited to participate as speakers, to advise us to look for something better than what governs their lives and pays their wages. We should also not find it surprising when one of them declares they are not going to tell us how their Party has for many years championed liberty issues i.e. that their party is the leader of the pack. Such a denial creates a platform for blowing a Party trumpet when supposedly not doing so. Perhaps that is the best we can hope for in a cross-party event.
Now I do not at all blame the good lady organiser of this event for its deplorable lack of democracy and its talking shop hot air. I understand that she valiantly pulled it together in only three weeks. In that context her achievement was admirable.
Nor do I wish to dismiss the Convention just because it hasn’t succeeded in immediately living up to expectations it raised. It is certainly a matter of serious concern that so many people left the event and stood outside comparing notes on their dissatisfaction and disappointment with the authoritarian style of the event.
But a start has to made somewhere, and the Convention HAS got started.
What we need to do now is develop the Convention by reactivating skills and strategies for genuinely involving ordinary people. That brings in a whole mass of skill, energy, enthusiasm and active work. People need to be encouraged to speak, to share their feelings, ideas and concerns. Then moved into pooling plans for addressing those concerns in a practical way.
Without real democracy the Convention will fade into a historical footnote, nice well meant attempt that petered out into obscurity. While meanwhile the forces of authoritarian control take an ever more iron grip on our lives.
Sian John’s account above does a great disservice to what was, on balance, an excellent event. Given the very short lead-time available to the organising team, I thought they did well. As always with events of the kind including live links with other venues, time is the great enemy, and although it was a pity there was more time available for questions and considered answers, I believe the event was a success.
David Peter, I never said the event was not a success. It made a start and that is a lot.
Nor was it lack of time that caused poor answers to very important questions. It was simple reluctance to deal with them – as yet.
Like you I recognise that in the short preparation time available, the event managed to be an adequate, standardised political convention. That’s what we get for democracy these days.
But consider instead what Anthony Barnett himself says on this website as the aim of the Convention:
“A profound transformation of our government and political culture is needed to defend the causes of liberty, fundamental rights and freedom in our country. People say this can only happen from below. It’s true. Usually it is said in Britain in a tone of voice that suggests such a movement is therefore impossible and can never happen. I hope the Convention shows that it can.”
I hope very much that the Convention shows that change can come from below, just as the man says.
It hasn’t yet. A set of speeches from above with a brief question time that doesn’t address the important questions that were asked – this transforms nothing. It’s same old same old.
What it does do is it asserts that the Convention has arrived, that it can “do that thing” – stand up like a real proper political event and do the business. That it has a claim to be taken seriously.
From there it can go further, and I hope that it will.
The Convention will need to take it very seriously that it’s working with a huge groundswell of anger after the last two governments since 1979; that’s 30 years a-building. People are very very angry and run out of patience. That won’t make them very patient with ’solutions’ that don’t deliver what they promise.
Again, I personally really hope the Convention will. It’ll need to do politics differently, but not so differently it scares the neighbours! A tough act to pull off.
It was a pretty good event. The speakers were interesting. And considering the main organiser had put the whole thing together in three weeks flat, it was incredibly impressive. I’ve done some events organising, I know what is involved, and three weeks is a very tight timescale to do it all; publicity, liaison with the venue, organising speakers, getting the real-time video links with London sorted, co-ordinating the timetables and diaries of a whole series of busy people so there will be a good spread of people, and a good deal more besides. Three weeks to put it together? It must have been chaos! A whole series of twenty-hour days and almost sleepless nights. I salute you!
However, I’m afraid I had my reservations. By and large, I’m afraid I agree with Sian John. I’m afraid I also agree with the heckler who stood up and ranted about the event being “undemocratic”. He may have expressed himself ungracefully, but he had a real point.
I’d use a different word. I’d say the format was authoritarian. The panel (who were, symbolically, seated above us) spoke at length, we listened, we were allowed a very limited time for questions, not all of which were answered. That was the extent of the participation allowed.
I am afraid it is not possible to promote freedom by authoritarian means. It’s all well and good to talk about the ends justifying the means. But the means tend to acquire a life of their own, to the point where they become a set of ends in their own right.
It is perfectly possible to design a much less authoritarian event format. One way might be to open with a single short speech from the platform, then ask people to fill in cards saying which issues they find most important. On the basis of the results, a series of small-group discussions can be created, possibly with each group focussed by one panel member, followed by a final report-back and plenary at the end of the day. It is also crucially important for each group to develop concrete suggestions which can be brought back to the plenary, or the whole thing becomes a futile talking shop, and people’s energy dissipates. To keep people engaged, they need to feel they are making a difference. Giving people the opportunity to “pledge” what they are prepared to do on pre-printed forms will not create the energy and commitment of ideas for action people could have thrashed out in collective discussion, had the event format allowed us the opportunity.
I feel that despite its very real virtues, today’s event was a missed opportunity, especially as much of the time the speakers took up they spent rehearsing things the audience already knew and agreed with. I hope a further event, or series of events, happens soon, which are organised around a more participatory, less authoritarian format. The ideal would be if a whole series of small local grass-roots events was spawned by this initial conference. I would be happy to help organise.
I would also like to focus much less on the question of what is wrong with what the State is doing, and more on the question of what can we do about it. The only suggestions today seemed to centre around getting involved in conventional electoral politics, which is the system that has failed us in the first place. There was also great emphasis on the role of the Welsh Assembly, but as one speaker from the floor said, while much that the Assembly has done is admirable, the history of the former Greater London Council shows that if a lower tier of government makes a nuisance of itself, it is liable to be abolished.
A more effective strategy would need many facets. It might be a combination of conventional electoral politics, non-violent direct action, radical lawyers ready not only to subject legislation to scrutiny and if needs be challenge, but also to defend people when, inevitably, some of us got busted, plus creative public relations to present the whole thing in the best possible light, all parts of this strategy working in synergy.
Such a strategy would be difficult to put together. It would need creative input from many people, to get the necessary wide range of expertise. That is one reason why I was dismayed that audience participation was so limited. If people were able to thrash out ideas about “what do we do about it”, and share ideas and insights at length, some really useful stuff might emerge. Such ideas for freedom can only emerge from a far less authoritarian format than today’s event.
I am afraid I came away from today feeling that if today’s event was the best we can do to defend liberty, we are probably all stuffed, to put it bluntly. Musing in pessimistic mode, I suppose it is not surprising. Thatcherism appropriated the concept of “freedom”, and re-interpreted it in a very narrow, specialised, sense, to mean market freedom and not much else. Trade Union rights were broken, democratically elected bodies had their powers removed, alternative radicals were savagely repressed. In 1997, after almost 20 years of this nightmare, we all breathed a sigh of relief, and dared to hope again, only to find that nothing had really changed, it was business as usual, only worse, with a shockingly authoritarian and dishonest government enthusiastically building a security state, with little or no effective parliamentary opposition. I think it was around then that many people gave up, and became either fatalistic or plain broken-spirited.
For most ordinary people over the last thirty years (and that’s an entire generation), “freedom”, to “stand on their own two feet” in the famous “flexible labour market” are code-words for a life spent in fear that if they step out of line, they can be instantly sacked, they can lose the entire lifestyle, and the bailiffs will come and remove their possessions. The most important thing students learn at university is how to be in debt; that they will never own their lives as their own. A great many people (including, I suspect, many of the organisers of today’s event), have little first-hand idea of what it is to live in freedom.
As it happens, I do live with a good deal of freedom. I have spent my life deliberately contriving a situation where I do. But I had an excellent, very privileged, education, I have a high IQ, and a ruthless readiness to make sacrifices and take drastic risks for my freedom if needs be. I have done a wide variety of things in my time. Not all of them were completely safe. I have always been properly cynical about what you say to government. What do you say to a man with a gun in his hand? Whatever will not cause him to pull the trigger! I have always been prepared to lie to the state if needs be. After all, how often do they tell us the truth? I married the right lady, and I have always had a very broad streak of downright luck. How many people can say as much?
I don’t think many people have any idea of what the word “freedom” truly means, because they have never allowed themselves to experience it. Although today’s event was a very brave try, overall it did nothing to contradict this assessment. However, I very much hope that it will spawn a genuinely democratic movement against authoritarianism, and thereby prove me wrong.
Sian, I fully understand your impatience for change, but in spite of what Anthony Barnett says much of which I agree with, we live in a representative democracy and while I share the notion of a building groundswell of anger over the past thirty years, I detect no great demand for a move away from representative democracy in the UK. Therefore change has to come from within the system and that is the huge challenge for the Convention.
David,
“Change has to come from within the system”. Oh dear. It is the system which has failed us. During the Thatcher years, we were told, over and over again, that “there is no alternative”, a pretty effective mantra, and a negation of democratic politics if ever there was, because democracy is about alternatives. Then in the years after 1997, we found that there really was no alternative; that the new government, in which so many of us had invested so many hopes, was giving us more of the same only more so. As a result, some people are despairing, some are angry, some are both.
If you have read Ralph Milliband’s “Parliamentary Socialism” (and I thoroughly recommend it), you will see that part of the problem of a radical movement that attempts to work by exclusively parliamentary means is that it has to prove its “respectability” and “credibility” in terms which are set not by its own values but by the values of those that oppose them. This drastically restricts what can be done by such means.
Now certainly, change has to come from within the system. That is axiomatic, short of an outright revolution, which is not on the cards. This is a very good thing too, because revolutions usually do more damage than they heal, at least for the first couple of decades afterwards, and sometimes longer.
But it is absolutely vital not to restrict ourselves to working solely and exclusively within the system. A multi-dimensional strategy would combine working within the system with pressure from a popular movement outside the system. That might possibly have a chance of success. On the other hand, to work exclusively within the system is to work on the system’s terms, and is doomed to defeat, probably by being co-opted and becoming ineffectual.
The situation is urgent. I fear we are approaching a situation where we have the forms of democracy but not the reality. We are free to vote once every few years for parties which are pretty much indistinguishable in their policies. That’s all. Apart from that, the state really does not have to listen to us or take account of what we want, and by and large it doesn’t. It has spent most of the last thirty years (under both major parties, be it noted) carefully constructing a situation where it does not need to. Hundreds of thousands marched against the Iraq war, because it was obvious at the outset that it was being sold to us on the basis of lies and spin. The demonstrations were enormous. The government did not take a blind bit of notice.
One route to influencing government always used to be to join one of the main parties and argue for the policies you wanted inside the party. This route is now pretty much blocked. That’s largely down to Tony Blair. Under the pretext of “improving” inner-party democracy, he made it impossible for people at the grass roots to challenge the leadership. Any proposals that the membership put forward have to make their way through a committee structure of bewildering complexity, dominated by the leadership’s placemen at every turn. If you are not a member of the inner charmed circle, you can forget it. You have no influence, and no chance of having any. New Labour will not ask its members for their ideas, except in the most token fashion, making it plain that this is for form’s sake only. They will, however, quite reliably ask all their members for money. The Conservatives are not much better, and do not have a good record of opposing the present government’s authoritarian measures in Parliament. As a result, members have been deserting the main parties in droves. Their membership lists are far smaller than they used to be, and their roots in the communities they used to be part of are far weaker.
Of course, it’s different if you are a millionaire, or a representative of a big multi-national, and can hire lobbyists and fixers to get you access to the inner sanctum of government. But that does not help the rest of us.
The system we are moving towards in the UK is beginning to remind me strongly of Vladimir Putin’s Russia. It has the forms of representative democracy, but in fact both are very authoritarian states, with some pretty drastic laws enabling them to suppress any dissenters. UK anti-terrorism law defines “terrorism” very widely, and basically allows the government to do whatever it likes to whoever it likes. In both countries, there are various political parties, but none of them have deep roots among the general population. (They did, once, in the UK, but not any more) In effect, the parties act as front organisations for the political elite with the general population. This leaves the elite free to ignore the wishes of the majority of the population, and to spend most of their time cultivating connections with the very rich. Both states go in for widespread surveillance of their population. Putin is ex-KGB, and some of the UK elite act as if they are. RIPA? Abuses of RIPA? More CCTV cameras than the rest of Europe put together? Email and phone intercepts and recording? ID cards and the NIR?
Now the problem is that this sort of system works. It does not work very well for the mass of the population, who are exploited, rousted around and spied on at every turn. But it works well enough for those at the top. In fact, it works very well for them, enabling them to live very comfortably indeed. And it works well enough to keep itself in existence. It is not clear what is to be done about this. Any ideas, anyone? And please don’t give me that tired old “work within the system” stuff. It is way too late for that.
I intend to enter into lawful rebellion using article 61 of the magna carta, this does still exist and is still in use today.
May I suggest you do some research?
I also agreed with the heckler – it struck me that there was, perhaps, too much listening and not enough time for debate. Although what all the speakers had to say was interesting it would have been good to have had the opportunity of more interaction with the floor, without whom the speakers would have been redundant.
The outburst from the Tory was, I felt unfortunate, unnecessary and petulant, however, credit where it’s due, at least he had the grace to appear, unlike any representatives from the apparently cowardly Labour Party.
The fact that it was all put together in such a short time was thoroughly impressive however, despite some shortcomings and no doubt lessons will have been learnt.
I feel most strongly that to shedule the next convention so far ahead would be unfortunate – might be too late by then…..
I am going to examine David’s reply closely because I think what he has said is important. John Davies heartfelt thanks, you are an inspiration and a rich education walking! You’ve made a small slip which I will get to later today.
————————————-
David said: Sian, I fully understand your impatience for change,
Sian replies: David I’m not sure what gave you the impression I am “impatient” any more than anyone else interested in the Convention who is saying it is time – ENOUGH!
I have been working for six years to raise awareness of the same issues targeted by the Convention. That isn’t a flash in the pan, impatient kind of record. Granted you didn’t know that but please don’t make hasty assumptions.
But don’t worry I’m not advocating revolution. I know my history far too well for that and have no wish to throw up a class of power mad little men even worse than those we’ve got – or just the current bunch wearing new clothes.
David said: … in spite of what Anthony Barnett says much of which I agree with, we live in a representative democracy …
Sian replies: David if you agree with much of what Anthony says presumably you agree when he says “A profound transformation of our government and political culture is needed to defend the causes of liberty …”
That must mean a bit more than merely using the representative democracy that has failed us so badly.
I have above outlined how election promises almost magically disappear once election success is gained. That is bad enough, but even in an election itself, most of us do not have any real vote unless we live in a marginal seat. Once past an election MPs vary a great deal on whether they listen and act on pressure (letters) from the likes orf us. The last two governments have a stunning record on ignoring the most massive public statements of what we want. The response is that they feel they haven’t “explained” to us enough … read persuade, manipulate statistics, spin.
In fact in the same article I have quoted Anthony describes the effectiveness of peaceful direct action and gives several examples.
David said:
I detect no great demand for a move away from representative democracy in the UK.
Sian replies: Now there you have a good point. Political comprehension in Britain has deteriorated badly as political education, and crucially basic education for all, has been dismantled. People have far less knowledge than they had 30 years ago, to examine, criticise, and act on that criticism.
The tragedy is that people now don’t KNOW what living free means unless they are around 60 as I am. Britain used to be a remarkably free society and those who were young adults in the 70s can remember so much which has been censored, trashed, destroyed since.
The net has done much to fill the painful gap. Both as a tool for debate (like this) and a tool for organising (as used by Chicago, and now the Convention) the net is a great popular educator. It is no accident that the Convention is using high level online tools.
However I do not agree that people have no desire for anything else. I follow the trends of popular debates closely and what I see is a strong desire for something else.
There is even an extreme element caling for violence, revolution – and it is not the usual neurotic flailing about either but a real, true street level anger rising. Why else have police been issued with Tasers and so many laws passed that permit the most draconian repressve measures? – in case things get out of hand.
But there is time before that element takes charge and blood spills on our streets. Not much time I think so the Convention is so very welcome as a peaceful voice for change. I do not want to see the young and the hotheaded and the onnocent swept into it all, hurt, or even killed, certainly criminalised and imprisoned in great newly built prisons on the way now.
I agree with you that we must work within the system. But that is not enough, because the system of representative democracy was very deliberately changed by Tony Blair so that those in power can ignore it. We must therefore also have courage, be resourceful, look further, to work peacefully and proudly and creatively, in other ways as well.
David said:
Therefore change has to come from within the system and that is the huge challenge for the Convention.
Sian replies: I agree the Convention faces a huge challenge. But if it was just to work within the system that would be easy though tiring, and then doomed to failure.
The fact that the organisers’ vision goes beyond that is marvellous. The London Convention seems to have embodied some of that grass roots approach – shame the Cardiff was given so little time to prepare so we had such a silly third rate event by comparison. We must make sure that doesn’t happen again.
The challenge is to reactivate skills amnd strategies that were once very successful 30 years ago, in peacefully working IN the system, UNDER the system, AROUND the system … to transform that system into something less of a representative democracy and more of a direct democracy.
Athens which is universally hailed as the first Western democracy, was not a representative democracy. It gave ALL its citizens a direct vote on the issues of the day. That meant many thousands of people voting on every law – not just the 650 who represent us here.
With modern technology we could do something very similar.
But even without that there is much we can do in our workplaces, homes, schools. streets, clubs, libraries … small things each perhaps but they can add up to a lot.
Most of all the Convention needs to USE the knowledge and skills that we old ones have who did so much 30-40 years ago. The Convention needs to let us share our hard practical skills with the young. Then perhaps we oldies can sit back and admire how they pick it up and run with it.
The young, as the Convention rightly sees, are the key. But they don’t have the skills because of how they have been (un)educated. Reinventing the wheel is too time consuming – the situation is urgent – so the young cannot be left to painfully work it all out as we did. That was slow head banging agonising work. I’d like to save these fantastic young people some of that pain.
Monique Wittig said: REMEMBER when you were truly free … but if you cannot remember – invent!
I’m sorry I should have made it clear that I do not seek to impose my authority on young people. Rather I want them to plunder me and my generation for practical tools and resources.
The difference is in saying “Do this!”
and saying “You could try this – and this is how it worked out when we did it – do you think this might fit what you need?”
With love to my students and young people everywhere.
Sian John
Well, Sian and John have well and truly put me in my place. Perhaps I’d better stay in my rural hideaway and not venture into the big city again.
Both of you condemn the current system of government in the UK as not working, at least not working in the way that you want it to. However, neither of you are putting forward credible alternatives nor, more importantly, credible methods for moving from the current position to whatever version of Utopia that you wish to reach.
All my life I have heard the argument that ‘the system is stacked against this group or that group’, and this argument used as an explanation as to why change cannot come from within. What has never convinced me is that change can be achieved from outside the system without violent revolution except in very special circumstances such as those that pertained in Eastern Europe in the late 80s and early 90s. True authoritarianism can be changed by massed movement for change, but whatever you may think of the various forms of liberal democracy, I do not believed thay can be changed in this way.
In Britain, the mass opposition to the poll tax eventually lead to a slightly less iniquitous system of local taxation but changed very little else. More recently, the activities of the Countryside Alliance attracted significant support from many special interest groups but we still have a ban on hunting with dogs. And as has been pointed out, the march against the war in Iraq attracted huge numbers onto the streets but merely emphasised to the Government what they already knew, that this is a deeply unpopular and illegal war.
What all those who support the Convention on Modern Liberty want, as I understand it, is the repeal of certain measures already enacted that have the effect of restricting our personal freedoms, and to prevent the enactment of further measures that allow for Government, any government, to threaten to limit our right to live our lives as free as possible from any form of malign intervention by the State.
The question that has yet to be answered in any convincing way is how this is to be done, and if is not likely to be done by working with our elected representatives under the current system of government, then the alternatives need to be spelt out.
It is easy to moan about the current system and to attribute to it all manner of ills, it is quite another thing to put in place, credible alternatives that the mass of the popoulation understand and are willing to accept.
On that note I’ll go and feed the horse and walk the dog!
I broadly agree with the views expressed by Sian John and John Davies. I was looking forward to attending The Convention on Modern Liberty, feeling that it had the potential to be a very powerful event, but I think the emphasis on the views of politicians and establishment figures led to an imbalance. Although I feel I learnt a lot from the speakers about many issues relating to the erosion of our civil liberties, the crucial question of what ordinary people can do to resist this erosion and raise awareness in the broader community, seemed to be swept under the carpet somewhat. This happened not only in Cardiff, when this question, taken from the floor, was not answered, but also in London. I noticed that a question received via email asking what can be done was put to the London panel, but was also left unanswered. I also agree with Sian John that the way in which questions from the floor were handled was rather disempowering and patronising to the audience members. This issue was fundamentally due to the format of the Convention.
There should have been time for audience members to make their own comments and start discussions that included all those present who wished to take part, rather than being permitted to raise only succinct questions addressed to the panel.
I also feel that some of the MPs who spoke, both in Cardiff and London, took advantage of the opportunity to score points for their party (usually after disclaimers such as “I don’t think we should view this as a party political issue. However, my party…”). For instance, the Conservatives may be pledging to scrap the ID card programme, but they want to remove the UK from the EU human rights bill. So they want to create a British human rights bill? Well isn’t the point of human rights that they are universal? I am rather concerned about how the Conservatives plan to construct a new, improved, extra-British version! I agree with both Sian John and a gentleman who spoke from the floor at the Cardiff event that the erosion of our liberty is better viewed as a cumulative thirty-year process, beginning with Thatcher’s government (when I was born), and continuing through subsequent governments, both Tory and New Labour.
It is also an international phenomenon. It was emphasised in some of the speeches, how much worse the erosion of civil liberties is in Britain than in other countries. At one point, Britain’s massive DNA database was compared with the situation in America, which has a much smaller database. Whilst it is relevant to contrast ourselves with other nations, to get a sense of how dire the erosion of our liberty has become, it draws attention away from the way in which other countries’ situations actually mirror our own. For example, Americans have had huge losses in their liberty, with their emails and financial statements surveilled, and many protesters and dissenters blacklisted. This morning I was watching a film based on Naomi Wolf’s book ‘The End of America,’ and whilst she makes a chilling and excellent argument, comparing the rise of fascism in 1930s Germany to what has been done under the Bush administration, at one point she makes the fallacious claim that, in contrast to America, America’s allies in the war on terror have not brought in anti-terror legislation which inhibits the civil liberties of its people!
What I believe is needed is clarity about our common ground. It seems to me that the issue is about the relationship of the people with those who hold power, not New Labour versus Conservative, or this nation versus another, or middle-classs Guardian-reading lefties versus those who read the Sun or Daily Mail. I noticed a lot of this attitude during the discussions in London. Even the wonderful Shami Chakrabarti in her opening address seemed to imply that getting out to us provincial folk was a great thing, so that they wouldn’t be only preaching to the converted in London! I wasn’t aware that cities such as Belfast, Glasgow, Bristol et al were regarded as such politically apathetic places! There was too much focus on ‘us and them,’ I feel, which just goes to show what a divided nation we are. The press only adds to this polarisation.
I apologise if these comments seem to emphasise the negative aspects of what was a fundamentally positive event. It is just that like many others at the Cardiff event I feel a more democratic structure to the proceedings, and more emphasis on practical ways in which we can resist the erosion of civil liberties in the UK would have been helpful. It is very encouraging to see a strong national debate on civil liberties beginning to take shape, and I hope it continues to gather momentum in the future.
I remember when it was possible to walk down the streets without being spied on by CCTV.
I remember when it was possible to drive down the road without being spied on by CCTV and other cameras.
I remember when it was possible to send a letter, or make a telephone call, with a reasonable degree of certainly that it would not be tampered with, opened, intercepted or snooped on.
I remember when the state (which usually means the police) did not have the power to do whatever it like to whoever it liked, because we had nothing like the current plethora of anti-terrorism and public order legislation.
I remember a time when it would be unthinkable for the police to shoot a complete innocent, then walk away from it.
I remember when we had the right of silence when accused.
I remember when we did not have all our personal details recorded by organs of the State, then “shared” with a variety of organisations, both public and private.
I remember when people did not have to live in fear of arbitrary sacking, and were not condemned to short-term insecure contract work to make a living. Did you know the only country in the world where people are more frightened than we are in the UK of losing their job for no reason is South Korea?
I remember when you could get a roof over your head without having to have mother and father out working full-time, so I remember when family life was still real and possible.
I remember when there was a wide variety of cheap or even free meeting places available for community -based organisations.
I remember when there was cheap property; often dilapidated, but useable; for such organisations to run longer-term projects in.
I remember when it was possible to speak out, without being accused of “endangering community harmony”, or whatever other excuse the State is using this week.
I remember when it was possible to play music publicly without needing all sorts of licences.
I remember when it was possible to run events and festivals without all sorts of nitpicking quality assurance standards. We just got on with it. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn’t, but we had no-one telling us how to do it.
I remember when our politicians listened to us.
I remember when our politicians did not hide behind armed guards; when they were not frightened of their people.
I remember a good deal more, too. Basically, I remember freedom. But then I am almost sixty. No, it was not some mythical golden age. Yes, it had huge problems. In the real world, you always do. But compared with today’s world, the memory is a breath of fresh air! And if you are younger than about forty, I am afraid you have no idea what living in freedom is like, because you have never known it.
What do you remember?
Oh yes, and I also remember when you could demonstrate without having to ask permission from the police first, and have them decide your route and timetable for you. I forgot that one.
I certainly understand peoples concerns regarding the lack of ‘democracy’ during the convention. I think perhaps that logistics were a problem and that too much priority was given to invited gests in the hope that their contributions would provide gravitas and publicity for the event. Personally I had no problem with inviting key speakers to talk at length. Nevertheless, I think that the panel format felt a little bit to much like we were on a treadmill of views we were expected to just sit quietly and listen too. i think it would have been better if the panel was just given a decent introduction before giving up the whole period (usually at least an hour) for genuine interactive debate. I also think that in furure it would be nice to have satellite descussion groups where people could debate more freely and their concerns then be given considerstion for descussion at future conventions. However I can see the logistical problems with this. Hopefully as awareness and participation grows the convention will take a more democratic path.
John thank you for your memories. I remember all those things too and I am determined our children will have them back again. It’s NOT impossible.
David yes you’re being put in your place very definitely. It’s a place where your ideas are being read and considered so carefully that they are getting detailed answers.
You are NOT being fobbed off with an email that goes down a black hole.
You are NOT being fobbed off with one minute to put your case and an answer from a suit on a platform who doesn’t say anything that relates to what you said but puts in a plug for their own agenda.
You are NOT being silenced. You can Reply again as much as you like.
What you ARE getting is the strong taste of democracy in action. Your ideas examined – thoroughly examined, and replied to intelligently and respectfully.
Get used to it. THIS is freedom.
You outline a stark choice: representative democracy or revolution.
No one in their right minds wants revolution unless we have gulags (prison camps) here. That might happen if we don’t stop this State terrorism now.
That leaves representative democracy.
As you said the poll tax campaign, the Countryside Alliance, and the anti Iraq war campaign, achieved little.
Working through MPs has a little effect but not much and often none at all.
The two main political parties will promise the earth and forget all promises as soon as elected.
So representative democracy is of very limited use.
We have to look at alternatives and transformations. This is exactly what the Convention founders call for.
Representative democracy can still be used, but alongside, not alone.
And yes I did indicate what these alternatives are. So did Anthony.
But peaceful obstruction, protest, resourceful action, these have to be created in response to specific issues. There are no rigid rules, no precise recipes.
The way to create them is to get people together in small groups to share feelings and ideas. From the anger and despair that emerges, find common threads for targets.
Then work out at least a small step to take to address one of those targets. Either everyone in the group does the same thing, or the people takle different tasks that work together. Small things.
Once this is done, do another. Then grow it bigger, meanwhile linking to other groups doing the same.
Check you’re not breaking the law if possible.
Check on individual strengths and weaknesses, takinfg both seriously and respectfully.
This is how every successful movement has started. I was part of this kind of thing years ago and I saw it working very successfully indeed. So I think, was John, as he is my age.
But anyone younger than 55 has never seen how it works. So it looks mysterious and strange. The education system, and political education in particular, has changed greatly, so people don’t know this stuff.
There are those who remember. It is not for us to tell younger people what to do. But we could help people learn what was done before so they could use it again in their own way.
John Davies, Lorna Nicholls, Rosemary Aphrattios, Puul Major I can’t thank you enough for your messages. I no longer feel like a lonely wolf out in the wilderness.
Ive signed up for the interactive section of the website as Shan Morgain. Unfortunately this part doesn’t connect with the other part but perhaps we can connec t further over there if you sign up there too.
See top right link to ” user-led social network “
Dear Sian,
Thank you for your kind words of support.
I must question your views about young people, however. On the subject of grassroots political organising you write:
“Anyone younger than 55 has never seen how it works. So it looks mysterious and strange. The education system, and political education in particular, has changed greatly, so people don’t know this stuff.”
I am just approaching my 30th birthday, and I, like many people of my generation, have grown up with the constant mantra from the sixties generation that my generation is so apathetic, politically ignorant, etc. I often am asked things like “We were all out protesting, what are you doing?”, and this has been going on since I’ve been 14 or 15, from a number of my school teachers as well as others. I know it’s a common experience for many of my generation. Being exposed to this view of your generation over such a long period of time can be quite demoralising. And to a large extent I think it is a myth.
A friend of mine who is slightly younger than me, and who is a feminist activist and writer, was attending a feminist conference. The second wave feminists were all sat round bemoaning the pathetic state of contemporary feminism, and how the younger generation have no interest in feminism. My friend tried to talk about her experience of third wave feminist activism and organising but her views were more or less ignored. She offered to speak on the subject at the conference but her offer was rejected, and there was no representation of the younger generation of feminists among the speakers.
I have had a similar issue of being excluded from a meeting at a feminist organisation at which I was working voluntarily for a number of months, by one of the founders who is also a second wave generation feminist.
These are examples from the feminist movement, but I think they reveal something more general about the relationship between the generations. Your generation is rightly proud of its history of protest, dissension and political engagement and organising. However, I think sometimes this pride can blinker people to the positive things that younger generations are actually doing.
Maybe there is an element of apathy in young people, but as people have commented on this discussion board, this is a feeling that is now widespread among the British public across the generations, and has arisen for historical reasons already discussed. And being born into Thatcher’s Britain, as I was, of course makes her philosophy and the culture it gave rise to seem all the more entrenched.
But there is a lot of political organising out there being done by young people. In Cardiff there is No Borders South Wales, a NO2ID group, Peaceful Progress, Cardiff Anarchist Network, and many other groups. And there are other cities in the UK which are far more politically active at the grassroots level than Cardiff, such as Bristol, where some of my friends moved to because the activist scene is so vibrant and active.
I have many friends who are extremely politically engaged, more so than myself, although I also have friends who have no interest in politics and who may feel resentment at the government, but don’t really think about it, because, like so many people across the board in our country, they feel nothing they say or do makes a blind bit of difference. So yes, apathy exists, but to categorise younger generations by it, seems to me to perpetuate an unfair stereotype.
I’ve read the above comments with interest and I am impressed by the level of intelligence and debating skill that they show – which contrasts somewhat with that of the swiftly assembled panel.
It strikes me that the gift of intelligence and the ability to debate openly and clearly are what are needed to move the issues on.
I’m sure there are many people in Wales (probably many who did not manage to get to the meeting or who were not aware of it) who would wish to use the impetus of Saturday’s event to meet, debate and forward the ’cause’.
Organisations already exist that have liberty (or the loss of it) as a theme. Is it not possible for us in Wales to organise meetings and events that will start to link individuals and organisations in a creative non-party manner?
There is already a Facebook page dedicated to the Convention on Modern Liberty. That is an existing way of communicating with concerned individuals and organising ourselves.
Please let’s not wait a year.
“For instance, the Conservatives may be pledging to scrap the ID card programme, but they want to remove the UK from the EU human rights bill.”
Unfortunately, this appears to be mistaken. The Conservative policy is to replace the HRA with a Bill of Rights and to remain committed to the ECHR.
In relation to the other comments regarding the format, I would like to say that I have listened to the comments regarding the lack of audience participation and take those comments seriously – the difficulty on this occasion appears to me to be based on the time frame in which the organisers were involved to get the event going.
As someone who is starting out on a political journey, it is always interesting to listen and engage with people with different views. I come at this from a Conservative perspective and I agree that to some extent the whole issue is (as inevitably it would) political and to a lesser extent the discussion can become partisan in nature.
I hope that this will be an event that is repeated (and I agree that it should not be a year before the next instalment); sadly I fear that money may become an issue as staging events like these is expensive. If people would like to talk to me about liberty, then they can do so through my blog or website – and if I am elected, I will do everything that I can to continue to be both approachable and contactable.
I am sorry that the answer to the question regarding the adequacy of our politicians that I gave has been considered inadequate – disingenuous is a strong word and I don’t believe that telling people that the way to change their representation is to talk to and listen to the people putting themselves forward and to vote for those that they would like to represent them regardless of party is in any way disingenuous.
As already explained, our MPs are representatives. Coming from a Conservative outlook, I strongly believe that they should not become mere delegates (cf. Burke) – and if we are to improve the standard of our representatives then we are only going to do that if we vote for the person rather than the party that they stand for or represent. The more people that do this, the better the chance that we will obtain MPs (and other politicians) who will listen as well as talk.
I too was disappointed with the lack of opportunity for debate and discussion with us all from the floor, and with the fact that the mainstream political parties were over-represented in the speakers. I wonder why there was no representative from the Cardiff NO2ID group, for instance – and no-one from outside Cardiff it seemed. Where was the rest of Wales? Mum and I managed to travel from the Powys borders to be there. Despite the day’s failings, we were glad we had done so (just about!).
From my rural hideaway in the middle of Powys I remain puzzled by the lack of clarity in this whole process. The big fear I have is that this popular movement that was initiated on Saturday last will fizzle out under the immense weight and diversity of the aspirations and expectations that it has generated.
If the Convention on Modern Liberty is to achieve anything at all, then it needs to become much more focused on the specific goals to be achieved and arrange them in some sort of priority.
By the way, Marcel Berlins has an interseting piece in today’s Guardian, and I have written to my MP demanding the removal of Clause 152 of the Coroners and Justice Bill. What is the next practical step to be taken?
Here’s a few things we need; and don’t worry, there is nothing mysterious or utopian about any of them. These are just my menu of suggestions, limited by my understanding and knowledge. They are therefore incomplete. Feel free to add your ideas.
We need to recognise that last Saturday’s events were a good start, but no more than that.
We need a new conference, as soon as possible, not in a year’s time when the fire has grown cold, and it needs to be organised on a small-group discussion basis, not on a “platform talks, us ordinary folks listen” basis. I have already sketched out one possible way of organising such a meeting. Online discussion via this blog and the social networking set-up is very useful, but it lacks the fire and intensity of face-to-face debate, and fire and intensity are what we need to keep people engaged.
We need to recognise that conventional representative politics have failed us. It is not a perfect system. Remember, Hitler came to power by legal and electoral means. All the measures we object to have been brought in legally by elected representatives. The opposition has been remarkably supine. It has done little effective to oppose them.
We need to recognise that politely petitioning our elected leaders will achieve nothing at all.
We need ways of putting pressure on our elected representatives, so that democracy becomes a reality again, not merely a set of increasingly empty forms. This is not about overturning democracy, it is about revitalising it.
We need a plethora of local groups, maybe run in people’s living-rooms, to keep discussion of the issues alive, to raise public consciousness, to keep the issues on the agenda, and to run local actions. Some actions could be as simple as getting large numbers of local people to write to their local MPs and Councillors. This is a simple but effective measure. It makes a difference. Some actions might be more imaginative. Remember, if a question never gets on to the mainstream political agenda, it never gets discussed. This form of denial is very powerful, so we must not allow it.
We need local groups to network, both among themselves and with individuals. The skills of networking were thoroughly developed in the 1970s and 1980s, by a variety of groups, ranging from environmentalists to feminists. They were very effective skills. These groups achieved a great deal, and brought about some real changes, even if they did not win every battle. Many of the old activists who worked in them are still around. We should harness their skills, so the younger generation does not have to re-invent the wheel.
We need “how to” advice widely disseminated. How do you organise a local meeting? How do you publicise it? How do you go about getting a room in a library or a local hall?
We need a national organisation. This should have several roles. Firstly, it should disseminate information, so that people know exactly what legislation we are objecting to, and why. Secondly, we need readily available information on what our rights are, and how we exercise them. Case in point; a few years ago, we had a run-in with the Social Services, as a result of a malicious complaint. We requested a copy of the file under the Data Protection Act. We were able to prove unequivocally that they were cutting out information they should not have done, but in the face of the facts, they insisted they were operating the DP Act correctly. At that point we were unsure what our recourse was. It would have been nice if their had been a leaflet, or better an adviser, to help us. Thirdly, a national organisation can act as a clearing-house for information for local groups (it should not attempt to “co-ordinate” them in a heavy-handed fashion). A national organisation could also co-ordinate national information; for instance keep a list of sympathetic lawyers who are prepared to help people who need it.
We need a whole range of ideas, not limited to one area. Formal lobbying yes, certainly, but also informal networking. A network is very hard to destroy. It’s not like chopping down a tree, more like trying to deal with a bramble thicket. Plus silly stunts and theatre have their role too.
A bit more about that….. We’ve heard about how a local group tried to slow down drivers in a residential street by holding tea-parties in the street. Some people liked the idea, some have derided it. I’d call it a paradigm buster. There are three possible paradigms here, and they all have different implications. One is that the road belongs to drivers. In this paradigm, measures must be taken to help traffic move faster and more smoothly. Another is that the road belongs to the people who live on it, so measures must be taken to slow traffic down. Yet a third is that the road belongs to the State, so everyone must shut up until they are told what to do. Holding a tea party in the road promotes one paradigm and busts the other two. Also, newspapers love this sort of thing, and a picture is worth a thousand words!
Another example….. On October 25th 2005, a young lady was arrested for reading out the names of Britain’s Iraq war dead on the steps of the Cenotaph. How would it be if on October 25th this year, and every year, this was commemorated by having someone stand in the same place, wearing a gag? Well, they’d be arrested, of course. But if 25 or fifty or 100 people were all unobtrusively present, just looking like passers-by, but with each ready to don a gag, so as one was pulled down another stepped up, and we had our photographers ready, and a press release had gone around the newspapers, and lawyers were ready to defend them all, making the cases as high-profile as possible, it might serve as a very useful public comment on the current state of freedom. To put my money where my mouth is; I’d be prepared to wear a gag and be arrested in the cause of promoting freedom.
We need legal advice on tap. For instance, it may now be illegal to take a picture of a policeman. Does this mean it is illegal to take a picture of a policeman doing something wrong?
We need technical knowledge on tap. For instance, it would be good if we all know how to use an “instant upload” facility, so that by the time we get arrested and our camera is confiscated, the images are already safely on a secure server.
We need courage. Above all, we need courage. We need to understand that liberty is not safe, and it is necessary to take some real risks. If we do not, we have already lost.
We need to understand that it is no use at all saying we will not take certain actions to promote the cause of liberty because the very extensive powers the state now has mean we “might get arrested”. We have to accept that some of us certainly will get arrested.
We need to have resources and organisation, so that when we are arrested, it is made as uncomfortable for the state as possible, with the maximum publicity and legal circus.
We need a fairly sturdy, even cynical realism, that accepts that a few high-profile legal martyrdoms of this kind will advance our cause no end! And yes, I’m up for it.
That’s a few of the specific things I think we need. What do you think we need?
Rosemary Aphrattos said:
“But there is a lot of political organising out there being done by young people. In Cardiff there is No Borders South Wales, a NO2ID group, Peaceful Progress, Cardiff Anarchist Network, and many other groups. And there are other cities in the UK which are far more politically active at the grassroots level than Cardiff, such as Bristol, where some of my friends moved to because the activist scene is so vibrant and active.”
Then in the name of everything we hold important, why is the Convention not reaching out to these groups and involving them? Youth, passion, energy and committment are what we need! Not estabishment figures in suits running a traditional, authoritarian event format!
I agree with John Davies that a good next step is small local discussion groups and that a national organisation is probably necessary. My slight concern is that existing groups need to be careful not to use the Modern Liberty debate as a platform for their own (no doubt important and worthwhile)issues. This might dilute the effect of this Convention and be easily dismissed by the media as loony-leftism.
My second point is that leaders need to emerge locally – ‘cometh the hour’ and all that … please.
I want to answer several people in one post here.
See “user-led social network ” top right column. My name in there is Shan Morgain and in there we can all contact each other by email.
ROSEMARY – as an older second wave feminist I am horrified and angered at how you describe young feminists being treated. That is a liberty issue in itself!
But sadly I am not surprised. Older people do close ranks and hold on to power in all areas so it will be happening in feminism tioo. Kick hard!
I do remember vividly coming up against the core establishment among feminists in my day too. i was the same age but it didn’t stop me being held at arms length even though i was doing things more successfully – because of that i think. I’m afraid the long historical training women have had in slavish cliques will take a long time to wear off.
But in my own generation’s defence while I see the activism of your generation happening and I DO admire it, I cannot help the comparison with what I once knew. Which was so much more determined and energetic. Synergy of a whol;e generation is so powerful it made people who would now hang back, come forward.
That’s not your generation’s fault but a cruel government which has methodically dismantled community projects, and exhausts people with long hours, stress and debt. Nonetheless it does mean that to us mourning elders activism now feels very different.
It should NOT be called apathy thoughj. That’s a disgusting polito’s trick, blaming people for voting with their feet by holding back. Young people as far as I can see, are angry and disillusioned, and rightly, afraid. It is not as safe now to act as it was in my time, another very good reason why there is less activism. In some ways we had it easy.
I hope that helps with the possibility of dialogue across the years that divide us.
TONY BROWN says
“Is it not possible for us in Wales to organise meetings and events that will start to link individuals and organisations in a creative non-party manner?”
A man after my own heart! That’s EXACTLY what we need to do to follow up. It doesn’t need money or permission from anyone just people connecting by phone and email.
I personally have experience of that kind of networking. Rosemary has I think, John Davies obviously has a lot to offer. Others here too. We could just start doing it. Not hard.
I also have a large comfortable clubhouse with good transport connections I can make avialable for meetings. Plus experience of online networking.
EVAN PRICE you were very careful and respectful when I met you on Saturday. I appreciated the way you took me seriously – a rare skill in a politician!
I called your response disingenuous. On looking it up I find it accuses you of dishonesty. That was wrong of me. What I meant was that in answering the question what can we do since our MPs have failed us, your advice to work with MPs was absurd.
What you need to grasp is that the representative system is not enough. As John Davies so cogently put it, it is our represented MPs who have voted for all this oppression on our freedoms.
Bit by bit MPs have sold us down the river.
So you can’t really expect us to focus entirely on MPs. If they were doing their job they’d listen to us as we write to them and march and campaign. They don’t, or far too few do – of any Party.
We are disillusioned. The Convention touches our appetite for something much more effective. That’s not to ignore the usual; write to your MP, campaign etc routes. But it’s to add alternatives to it that are vital if we are not to have same old same old failure story.
KATE BULL I totally agree and moreover why weren’t WELSH interests represented?
For example the fight for the Welsh language is a liberty fight. The struggle around second homes for English holiday users is a liberty fight. Why weren’t such organisations there? Or at least their literature. It was all generic organisations could have been anywhere.
DAVID PETER I agree we need focus but a tightly defined hierarchy of aims will disillusion those left till later. We need to keep all our desires on the table, checking frequently that all get art least some attention so as to keep members loyalty going.
Second a project aimed at one thing can be easily obstructed. Rather, networking aims in several directions according to members’ interest in a messy but robuist way as John Davies describes. Much harder to chop off its head and kill it.
JOHN DAVIES I share much of your approach (wonderful analysis, quite breathtaking) but you’re trying to cram a college course at people who are only as yet doing A levels. This could feel pretty scary.
Things develop step by step which doesn’t need to be very slow. But we need to simply get linked and find out what we can do together, first. With some confidence and shared knowledge we can become an effective force for freedom.
Heartfelt thanks. I hope we can all connect properly. It’s a shame these posts don’t connect direct to the networking section. See “user-led social network ” top right column. My name in there is Shan Morgain and in there we can all contact each other by email.
Sian; thank you.
I agree that we cannot just focus on MPs – we need to focus on people. What politicians from all sides are desparate to do is to find some way to communicate in the meaningful manner with people. Sadly, it is often clear that for much of the country, there is a real difficulty in trying to persuade people that there is anything for them in ‘politics’.
Talking to your MP, AM, Councillor or even prospective MEP is merely one part of engaging with politics. Talking to others, listening to them, engaging with them on issues that affect their lives is almost certainly as, if not more, important. It is only through communication, whether on forums, social network sites, blogs, meetings or even simply one to one over a cup of tea, that we can start to work with each other rather than remain distant from each other.
As someone who wants to become a politican, I want to engage. This is not some whim or ploy to get an advantage – this is because I want to understand, discuss, agree and disagree with others about issues that affect us all. To be frank, I rather enjoy it. We won’t always agree … indeed, sometimes we will be utterly opposed to what the other says, but that does not mean that, time permitting, we shouldn’t start that process and, where they exist, find those areas of common cause.
If anyone is contemplating raising the public profile of liberty issues by engaging in peaceful protest or non-violent direct action, you need to do some research first. Try a google search on “rights when arrested”, specifying sites from the UK. The first three are from urban75, The Site, and Liberty. They are all HIGHLY recommended.
All these sites contain a plethora of information, and the navigation around them can be complex. I would suggest the following, as ways in: On the page the urban75 site opens, use the link at the bottom of the left-hand menu to go to their legal homepage. On the Liberty site, use the bottom item on the menu; “The right of peaceful protest.”
Study up on this stuff until you have at least a basic familiarity!
Regarding the idea of setting up local groups, would it not be worth those of us who live close enough to each other to meet up informally to start with, even if it were only a handfull? I’d be happy to be in touch with like minded people, just to see where we might go from there.
….it just occurs to me that while airing our views on the boards is fine, it doesn’t seem quite enough, given the gravity of what we are facing.
yes Lorna
it just needs someone to take the lead here …
there doesn’t seem to be a simple way to communicate with each other … the ’social network’ system seems a bit clumsy to me
i’m a member of the Facebook group and you can mail me through Facebook easily enough …
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=50778993097