The Programme for the Convention on Modern Liberty was published today. We will be putting the entire pdf on the web. Meanwhile are are two short pieces by the Convention’s Co-Directors on what what next.
Anthony Barnett
It was one of the great missed opportunities of recent time. Twelve years ago we had our own ‘Obama moment’. A young, untried leader was swept to power on a wave of popular desire for the renewal of our political system, all the more possible in benign economic circumstances. Now, for all the good things it has done, Labour’s legacy includes:
- The misuse and abuse of ‘the war on terror’ to extend arbitrary police power
- The development of a surveillance society that undermines privacy
- The creation of a database state that tracks and controls the lives of its subjects
- The collapse of parliament as a check on the executive power of government
Why? What is the problem to which the billions being allocated to the database state and the surveillance society is the solution? I know of no coherent and persuasive answer.
Is it because, as a senior figure in Westminster suggested while himself supporting ID cards, that a “deep state” at work, especially in the Home Office? Is it because surveillance and information sharing provide juicy contracts ensuring years of cash flow for mainly US corporations skilled at lobbying at the highest levels of the bazaar (as Diane Abbott described the House of Commons in an unchallenged speech)? Is it because our media has been too flattened to expose and sustain coverage that is not fed by official press releases? Is it because the EU seeks to create a ‘single market’ for commercial and official information sharing? Is it because the Westminster establishment, led by Blair, bought George Bush’s ‘war on terror’? Is it because, since it backed the Iraq war, the Whitehall elite knows that it is no longer wiser than the people, and seeks to sustain by electronic means the legitimacy it has lost even in its own eyes? Is it because ID cards will be British and thus provide a hi-tech means of countering the threat to the UK as governments gain popularity in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? Or is it because a governing class hankering for the global reach of empire is simply desperate to control the natives by any means possible?
It makes it harder to stop something if you do not understand why it is happening. So investigating the reasons for the assault on our liberties is important ongoing work.
It needs to be public, concerted, open-minded and enjoyable. Henry Porter and I want the Convention to be a convivial event. If it is, it will be thanks to the energy and confidence of a generation under 35 and in some cases under 20. Their talents and voluntary dedication have created the website, the videos, the research and briefing papers, the design, the local meetings, and its spirit of constructive resistance.
The original idea was for an “alarm call”. When asked “What next?” I feel like saying don’t look to the smoke alarm to put out the fire. Look to yourself and what you can do in concert with others. Remember that we are powerful together – and if you don’t feel this to be so, perhaps it is because this is how they want you to feel. Many organisations are already combating the four-fold undermining of liberty as we can see. Please join and support them.
Any such movement will include strange bedfellows and contain differences. Some fear the right to privacy strikes at the right to know. Some see human rights as an infringement of democracy not its support. Party antagonism run deep across those brought together by the Convention. But as the financial crisis moves in, and as the police seem to be preparing to act ‘pre-emptively’ to control everyone they deem unruly, from football fans to music lovers, this is all the more reason to act together where we can.
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.
Henry Porter
Looking through the thirty odd Acts of Parliament responsible for so much of the erosion of British liberty, you have a feeling of unreality: how could this happen in our Parliament, under the gaze of the press and the British public with its innate respect for justice and freedom and addiction to privacy?
It seems incredible to find that MI5 developed the torture policy in Pakistan, that Britain is one of the two liberal democracies in the world to be named by an International panel of jurists as having actively undermined international law, that the Constitutional Committee of the House of Lords has condemned the culture of surveillance and data collection in the United Kingdom as “undermining the long standing traditions of privacy an individual freedom which are vital to democracy.”
This is Britain, for heaven’s sake. These don’t happen here.
But they do and perhaps the most remarkable part of the story is that the Human Rights Act – a bill of rights by any other name – came into law in 1998 at the exact moment the government began to reveal its hostility to constitutional rights and the Rule of Law. The HRA may have brought justice to many individuals but even its most ardent supporters cannot now argue that it has protected the public as a true bill of rights would from a government that received just a third of the popular vote at the last General Election, yet behaves as though our rights and freedoms are privileges that maybe withdrawn at his pleasure.
The presence of the HRA on the statute book has prevented us from seeing the wart on the end of our nose: namely, that we are a substantially less free society than we were a decade ago and that the individual is on the point of being encircled by the state’s apparatus of surveillance.
If the HRA really worked as Bill of Rights we would not be here today.
Perhaps the most difficult aspect for many to face is that we are as responsible as the government for what has happened. Over the last decade a change came about in Britain that allowed people to think that only their liberty and comfort mattered and to forget that a system of rights must be universally applied and respected in order for it to work. The very expression “human rights” became an object of scorn in the popular press and led those in power to believe that we did not care about rights and liberty and we would not guard our privacy. It’s difficult to know whether fear of terrorism, apathy or exuberant consumerism caused this mood but it is clear that this selfish mood was disastrous for society – and for politics. For government can only function properly and serve the public if people pay attention to what’s happening and demand proper coverage of politics from the media.
When people ask me what next? I reply, well, reading the papers would be a start. Find out who your MP is and pester them; set up a local group to discuss the attack on liberty and what you can do about it, which is exactly how my co-director, Anthony Barnett, and I began three years ago. Activated opinion can be a great force for good and not just on this issue. We need to re-engage with politicians and they with us, not in the bogus consultations that always produce the result the government wants but with meaningful exchange in which we hold our politicians to account
It’s no exaggeration to say that unless we involve ourselves in the political process ours will be the first generation in centuries of British history to hand on a less free society than the one we inherited. That is a shocking thought, but we still have time to act. What we need is a movement, especially among young people, to make the public at large understand that we have only a few years before the changes wrought by this government become a permanent part of life in the United Kingdom. A movement cannot be born in a day of speeches and discussion, however notable the speakers, but we can provide that spark of inspiration and that is what we will do today.
Could this Convention be a springboard to a Constitutional Convention?
We don’t want Westminster solutions to the country’s problems, we want the country’s solutions to Westminster’s problems – let the people decide.
If like me you are disabled then use the net to lobby any MPs journalists & other influential people you can think of.Get on to local papers. Research & quote examples of abuses, debate the issues, make your neighbourhood more aware. Once basic liberties have been eroded it will be much more difficult to regain them
With the notable exception of a few individuals – Tony Benn, David Davis and Damian Green spring to mind – I have yet to be convinced that there is any appetite within mainstream politics to unpick Labour’s repressive legislation.
Similarly, the media has generally played scant attention to this issue. There is clearly disquiet in the country, so much so that Labour Party voters have shown their willingness to defect to the BNP in the absence of any credible opposition. While I am sure that this is primarily driven by economic and immigration concerns, it seems entirely possible that the increasingly repressive state is a plausible contributing factor – however little it may be articulated.
With the Liberal Democrats lagging in public perception and both Labour and Conservative Parties suffering from the ‘never again’ sentiment of an extremely disillusioned electorate, would these not be ideal circumstances in which to field ‘Modern Liberty’ candidates at the upcoming general election? At the very least, it may help to place the question of civil liberties at the forefront of the political agenda.
Agree a constitutional convention is required. I do write to my MP. Most recently I asked why our elected representatives have not provided more checks and balances on a runaway government. He replied that in effect the Commons is redundant and we are a democracy in name only. He is not standing for reelection at the next election. Maybe he is also as frustrated as I am that so much authority is given to the unelected, eg Mandelson.
That me and R Middleton signed up for a constitutional convention then, and the Lib Dems sound like they are up for it, and if all the organisations at this Convention sign up it becomes a powerful lobby.
This is the next step. It has to be, because if we leave it up to Labour or the Tories they will try to preserve the bipartite electoral dictatorship.
Anthony Barnett is showing one important route to the solution – to understand why they have done it. I would never have expected it and so share Henry Porter’s and Anthony Barnett’s incredulity. As part of our next effort after the Convention we should set up our own inquiry, publicise it,take witnesses and try to find the answer. The government loves inquiries, (especially if they get the government off a particular hook), so let’s see if we can mimic government in this respect and see what we can find out some answers. Maybe some of those in, or close, to government might testify ( anonymously even) and it is another step to raising the profile of the campaign. We’ve done the Abolition of Freedom Act – now it’s time for an inquiry!
Helena Kennedy answered her own question – is there something in the water at the Home Office? yes, power. It is a disease that afflicts all our politicians, even the most promising ones. It is a political problem that will never go away. How will Modern Liberty tackle this when it’s endemic to our political system?
I’m battling to understand why nobody seems to link our loss of liberty to the ‘Welfare State’! I’ll use the example of cannibis reclassification. Most of the governments argument for it’s about turn centres on the percieved added pressure on socialised medicine(nhs). I don’t want mental healthcare or any other state funded healthcare. I also don’t want to be forced to make any further contributions to it. in that way i reserve the right to smoke, drink, inject or snort what I want
It was intereting to hear Ken MacDonald talk at the Convention session about how being in a position of responsibility, as he was when serving as DPP, can lead otherwise decent peole into taking steps that actually amount to attacks on liberty. Mr MacDonald himself was directly responsible for overseeing, in a three year period from 2004 to 2007, the unlawful detention in police cells of literally thousands of criminal suspects. The unlawful detention arose from his advice, as DPP, to the police about charging procedures. All of the victims of the bad advice, including many children, were kept unlawfully in police detention after interviewwhile their cases were referred to a prosecution lawyer for a decision. People, including children, were kept unlawfully in police cells in such circumstances for many hours. Many of these individuals ended up not being charged with any offence. The Court of Appeal determined last year that this sort of detention had been unalwful as it had not been permitted by statute. Rather cynically, the government has since changed the Police and Criminal Evidence Act so that such post-interview detention can now be considered lawful.
I wonder if Ken MacDonald would now accept that what he did in this regard as DPP was simply wrong and if he would accept that he contributed to the outrageous deprivation of libverty of all of these individuals.
The potential for loss of liberty is inherent in our political system, regardless of the political flavour of government. We are subjects, not citizens. We have no guaranteed rights, only permissions – and we, the people, inhabit the periphery of our ‘democracy’ rather than being its beating heart.
Power is vested not in us, but in an arcane concept called ‘the Crown in Parliament’ – monarchical rule by proxy. This means that a government with a working majority can operate as an elective dictatorship. This government was elected by just 22% of the popular vote.
Our 18th century system used to work – sort of – when there was a ‘gentlemen’s agreement’ about the unwritten rules of British governance: I suspect this is what Dominic Grieve meant when he talked this morning about ‘running things past his grandfather’. The gaping holes in our constitutional framework have always been there and have simply become evident since Margaret Thatcher tore up the old post-war consensus back in the early 80s. She opened the doors for everything that is happening now: one reason among many why this ageing hippy fiery radical could never, ever, vote Conservative.
We need a new constitutional settlement – and not just because we cannot trust our politicians to safeguard rights that should be inalienable in any society with pretensions to civilisation. We need it because it will provide the framework within which we, the people, can begin to work together to address the many challenges we face, not least the environmental imperative, an imperative which has no respect for national boundaries.
I have come to believe, over many years of activism, that the answers so many of us yearn for lie in a concept of global citizenship – a realisation, an acceptance and a celebration that we are united in our humanity and intimately connected to the planetary web of life on which we depend. But how can we begin to prepare for the challenges that lie ahead unless we drag our own constitution and system of government into the 21st century?
First, congratulations and thanks to Anthony, Henry and everyone who worked to bring this convention to fruition. We have started along on what is likely to be a very long road.
There seemed to be general agreement that we should work collectively and individually to reverse the slide into authoritarianism that we have experienced over the last decade and more. And many calls were made throughout the day for a written constitution that would guarantee basic human rights and limit the degree to which government could intrude upon them. Producing a constitution that satisfies all those who wish – or are elected – to participate in its development will be no easy task. But other countries have managed it (the latest being Bolivia); and I think we need to make a start. Someone today asked who would write it. The question needs an answer, and perhaps we should be thinking about a constitutional convention – beginning perhaps with a series of public meetings in different parts of the country. And we need a team who will spearhead the effort. What I believe we must avoid, if we are to go this route, is leaving it to the politicians, because with a few honorable exceptions, they will not take kindly to having their legislative room for manoeuvre curtailed and will work to undermine the effort and to delay its implementation.
But – a word of caution. Constitutions can be traduced by governments determined to do so – as I think many people agree has been the case with the Bush administration in regards to torture, extraordinary rendition, and the treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay (See the 8th Amendment). The US system of government, however, has significant checks and balances which allow it, over time, to be largely self-correcting. Limits on presidential terms of office and, above all, the constitutional independence of congress and senate mean the president and his entourage cannot run off with the country’s democracy. To be meaningful, a British constitution would require the same safeguards. This implies a fundamental re-thinking of our own system of government. What I am suggesting is that we need a vision of where we want to go; a vision in which we can believe and which we feel is achievable. Can we work on this?
Thanks to Anthony and Henry for organising what was actually quite an inspirational and huge event. I can’t believe that many people came! Wow.
Anyway, I wrote an article about the bloggers summit here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/feb/28/convention-modern-liberty-data
I’d encourage people to get involved in online campaigning and supporting groups fighting on these issues. Last but not least, get organised!
“This implies a fundamental re-thinking of our own system of government. What I am suggesting is that we need a vision of where we want to go; a vision in which we can believe and which we feel is achievable. Can we work on this?”
Right on, Jeremy Fox. I’d work on this. How can we make it happen?
Congratulation on the great success yesterday.
Since this page is the place to discuss “what’s next”, I’d like to shamelessly plug a wiki I’m a part of (since this is no time to be too polite).
http://SaneBiometrics.org is a project trying to restore our liberties by way of a *technological alternative* to the reckless manner in which biometrics are being used today (The national ID is proposed for *the future*, but maybe your children are in a school cafeteria bio-db *already*).
As Lessig says, “code is law”. Since code is not written by MPs (but dictated by credit card companies and other bodies that have little interest in our privacy), it is *our* duty (as geeks) to “do it right before they do us wrong”.
All – please read. Geeks – please contribute. Together, maybe we can have a zero-funded open-source prototype to demonstrate at CoML 2010
I agree that we need a constitutional conference, open to all, and that transforming ourselves from subjects into autonomous citizens should be one of its major tasks. We are subjects because we are disempowered, whereas the state possesses virtually unlimited powers including even the ability, by securing monarchical-style orders in council, to set aside inconvenient legal judgements. At the same time too many MPs neglect the interests of ordinary voters because they are in thrall to party whips, to the hope of preferment, and to lobbying by wealthy interest groups. Simultaneously the undemocratic electoral system they are content to keep in being encourages them to ignore large swathes of the electorate.
One conclusion to be drawn from this is that it is time to empower ordinary voters, preferably in a way that guards the restored liberties we intend to win from being undermined by the political class. One mechanism for doing this, which an open constitutional conference should seriously consider, is initiative and referendum. This gives ordinary voters the right to requisition a binding referendum on any proposal for which they can collect a reasonable number of supporting signatures.
Such a right (accompanied by an obligation on the media to give fair exposure to all shades of opinion in the pre-vote public discussion) would break the power of the political class to determine the political agenda and impose its will in the teeth of public opinion. Hence, very likely, no more assaults on civil liberties, no more unpopular wars, no regressive tax system, no compulsory ID cards, no more subservience to business, and a government which knows that every and any decision it takes can potentially be overturned by the people, who have at last gained the sovereignty they need to defend their interests.
[...] Left to task about this on Liberal Conspiracy a couple of weeks ago but it applies to us all. As Anthony Barnett says: When asked “What next?” I feel like saying don’t look to the smoke alarm to put out the [...]
It’s not a vision that’s required.
Chasing consensus on a vision won’t work.
The last thing we need is ‘let’s have meetings to agree on a vision’.
It’s the process of envisioning that’s important, not the agreeing of a vision.
It’s the process of being citizens that’s important, not 10 years of conventions and lists of pledges.
It’s fully living as free people that demonstrates our freedom that’s important, not getting on the web.
If you want to be radical, get off the web. Stop using Google.
Stop letting them trace everything you say and do and think.
We must systematically and carefully undo the things that are wrong, and then the right things will flourish.
Why? Because freedom is a natural state of the human being, and all that must be done to allow it to exist is for the things that prevent it be taken away.
Don’t waste your time with the tools of corporations: visions, action plans, pledges, ’social networking’ (a misnomer if ever there was one), committees, steering groups, quora, cyberspace sign ups, and whatnot.
And always remember: free living offline is far more important than any experience or action in cyberspace.
The one thing we need is the power of recall.
Until we have the right to sack any and all of our elected representatives mid-term, to cancel and re-negotiate their contracts of employment, the country will never, ever be ours.
No employer would employ anyone on the terms on which we employ our politicians.
We are, quite simply, gullible fools.
I’d just like to re-iterate an *immediate* “What Next?”, namely:
Please write NOW to your MP – http://www.WritetoThem.com is a single click away – telling him or her that you *refuse your consent* to the arbitrary sharing of your information under any ‘Information Sharing Order’ and that you want him or her to vote to have Clause 152 of the Coroners and Justice Bill (currently being debated in Parliament) *completely removed* from the Bill.
If you care about our fundamental rights and freedoms, the time to act is now – before we lose yet another one!
For those who don’t have time to read Clause 152, it would enable any Minister by order to be able to take any information gathered for one purpose – across the public and private sector – and use it for any other purpose.
All by itself, it is more dangerous than the entire Identity Cards Act – it literally provides the powers to build the Database State.
Please write to your MP *now* – and tell everyone you know about Clause 152, and ask them to write to their MP too.
http://www.WritetoThem.com – “I refuse to consent, stop Clause 152″
We CAN stop this. Over to you…
A big thank you to Anthony, Henry, Guy and Clare and everyone else for organising such a wonderful event.
Whilst agreeing that there needs to be debate on a constitution I feel that defending civil liberties is now more urgent.
As to ‘what next’ what thoughts are there for a convention before the next election?
Pressure on present politicians and future candidates is vital. We all need to write to our M.P.’s as individuals, but perhaps a short list of questions should be drawn up and circulated to all M.P.’s, by Mod.Lib. to see where they stand on civil liberties, on the understanding that this would be noted on the site. Those that do not reply will also be noted.
The next stage could be a survey of the candidates for the next parliamentary election. A convention before the election would then become be a vehicle to emphasise the need for the electorate to take note where candidates stand on civil liberties when they vote, and to help promote those who have committed themselves to defend these liberties, irrespective of party.
WHAT NEXT?
First congratulations and thanks to Antony and Henry, and everyone else who created this great starting point. Now we need to go further.
Towards the end of this post I give a seven point practical plan for how to go forward.
Skip to the # # # # # # # # # # # ## marker if you want.
ANTHONY BARNETT SAYS:
Look to yourself and what you can do in concert with others. Remember that we are powerful together – and if you don’t feel this to be so, perhaps it is because this is how they want you to feel. Many organisations are already combating the four-fold undermining of liberty as we can see. Please join and support them.
Anthony – if doing it on our own, including networking, were enough we wouldn’t have come to or connected with the Convention. We are looking for a meta-network that can link small efforts together.
HENRY PORTER SAYS:
When people ask me what next? I reply, well, reading the papers would be a start. Find out who your MP is and pester them; set up a local group to discuss the attack on liberty and what you can do about it, which is exactly how my co-director, Anthony Barnett, and I began three years ago.
Three years ago Henry that was appropriate and admirable. But we can’t afford to wait another two or three years while we all go into our local areas and work separately to start little groups and painfully nurture them throuigh their baby steps. By the time they become effective a lot more damage will have been done.
We need to work faster and stronger by linking together across the country. The Convention’s next step is in facilitating that.
PHIL BOOTH thank you for your excellent concrete suggestion about registering dissent (refusal/ non consent) with our MPs under any Information Sharing Order, and demanding said MP vote to have Clause 152 of the Coroners and Justice Bill (currently being debated in Parliament) *completely removed* from the Bill.
We can also write to our GP and register dissent to permitting our Health Records to be “shared” with any agency not directly and specifically working on our health in a medical way.
We can also make enquiries about our children to see if they have been fingerprinted, issued with any kind of ID Card, or interviewed by Connexions or any similar agency. If so demand this is dismantled, destroyed, Encourage anyone you know who has children to do this.
With one exception: if under Child Protection “supervision” you cannot affoprd to anger the bullies.
# # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # #
Finally more generally how can we best go forward from the Convention’s day of opening up possibilities?
I do not think that aiming at key constitutional change (at this point) is realistic. We don’t have the clout to do it. It would take many years to achieve as a first goal, and would have to be backed by judges and at least some MPs of all parties. They aren’t going to work to change what feeds them.
Constitutional change may well happen as a result of other activities building up though.
Where I think we need to build on the Convention is connecting together. That is ultimately the greatest power we have. Connecting means sharing resources. ideas, knowledge, contacts. Some of us have these and the more they are passed on the better.
For some excellent ideas on how this can develop see the post-Convention blog, Cardiff sector.
http://www.modernliberty.net/2009/cardiff-a-welsh-perspective-on-the-future-of-freedom
John Davies gives superb analysis and recommendations – almost a recipe of ‘What Next’!
Every freedom movement I have known started from small groups. In that Anthony and Henry are dead right. But sending us off to set up groups will leave most people floundering. It takes knowledge and skill. Not so hard to learn but people do need a bit of help from those who know, to get started.
It will be important to work in connection not only with each other but in connection with other Liberty type organisations, Open Democracy, Liberty, Amnesty etc A Convention group will need to contact other organisations and offer support and ask for help.
What precisely each group does will depend on its members. One group might focus on Clause 152 of the Coroners and Justice Bill. Another on ID cards.
Whatever their agreed major focus – which could be 2 or 3 things for a larger group – the group needs to be willing to help other groups doing other things. Otherwise we’re not working together. Small favours exchanged, members going to support another project or action, strengthens us all.
ONE The very first step is to get connected with 1) local people around the Convention 2) local people with other liberty based organisations and 3) less local people you feel are like you in affinity with you who might be useful and you might be useful to them.
TWO Through telephoning and email get together. Online meeting is definitely an option – MSN and Inbit Messenger are both free and can support group meetings. Inbit messenger can also handle different groups in different “rooms.”
But nothing can replace really getting together.
THREE Share the yuck. Despair, disilusion, anger. This is an important stage if we are to move on. Everyone needs to be heard and respected, to remedy the way we are NOT heard and NOt respected.
FOUR From the connections, begin to identify something that most people feel strongly about. Something in common. Maybe two or three things. As specific as possible.
Some members may need to put their pet concerns on the “second place” list but this should be with strict reassurances from others that once a bit of confidence and experience is going these issues will move to first place. It’s just that first activities are best about things held as wiodely in common as possible.
FIVE Now work out something definite and practical the group can do together about these key issues it shares. This might be something EVERYONE does – like writing to an Mp, putting information notices up in the library or elsewhere locally; watching for news items where members can write comments onj liberty issues. Small steps like these first.
SIX Once the group has learned to carry out small projects like this effectively bigger things become poassible. Like visiting your town hall to speak to one of the committees or writing to a Parliamentary committee. Or do a public action, witnessing and talking with people about what’s wrong.
SEVEN Keep doing steps 3 4 and 5 – sharing disillusion and anger is raw liberty fuel. Identifying those secondary aims and picking up on them is important not to forget so as not to lose members. The more practice at doing definite things the better.
Then of course there’s the connections to other organisations to check every couple of weeks to see what they are doing. Networking is never lonely and rarely boring!
To start this off I am well placed by experience to support people who want to start groups.
I also have a big comfortable building with meeting rooms right near the M4 and mainline stations (train/ bus).
I can help and support anyone in Wales or Bristol directly around starting up groups, both for early steps and problems arising.
More distantly I can help with simple online software, and practical advice/ personal support.
I’m on the networking section here as Shan Morgain. See Crowdvine top right column on this page. Join it and contact me or others if you like.
Alternatively email me on Shan*A*shansweb*.co.*uk
leaving out the * asterisks and replacing A with @
IVOR CORNISH – brilliant post, excellent proposals. Hope we get to connect.
What a breath of fresh air it was to read of this campaign. At last, a beacon of hope. As for ‘what next’, I can’t think of a better next step than Ivor Cornish’s suggestion. Could that be made to happen?
We need either a whole new party to represent us or we need to agree to coalesce around (for example) the LibDems, who at least say they’ll abolish ID cards etc. In my ward the LibDems won’t even campaign because it’s always gone Labour or Tory & they’ve never had a look-in. They lack the spirit of the Finchley Labour Party in the early-mid ’90’s here, and I was horrified at the Birmingham LibDems’ campaign based on curtailment of liberties on moral grounds in the last local elections: frankly that’s so at odds with the party’s founding principles the people responsible should have been drummed out of the party but there you go.
So – can we trust the LibDems to represent our interests? Maybe, if we get right in there & lobby & protest & participate like crazy.
As angry as we may be – please, stay safe, stay legal. We can do this, I’m sure – there has to be a way.
There is nothing wrong in theory with freedom of information, only in the way in which it is being constructed in parliament bills, I am not perfect and although I do not relish the thought of people snooping through my personal emails I rarely say anything I would not in retrospect wish I could keep a secret from the world, however, this bill will not allow information to flow the other way, ie. from government to the public, if all information was free to all we could all see where spam was actually coming from, we could trace dodgy deals of politicians, bankers, businesses and chose more accurately who we would want to be associated with. We live in an information age, there is no turning back now without serious disruption to society, and whether we are in agreement or not our correspondence will be intercepted you can be sure, it is the inherent inequality that is the issue, I say yes, let all information be free. People may then be able to group themselves into peer groups without fear of retribution and attack, no matter what their beliefs and then let the truly offensive become outlawed by true public consensus, not ridiculous “Acts of Parliament” which only serve to push the more extreme underground and force minorities into terrorism. We are NOT stupid, we do not need so many rules to tell us what is right and wrong, we may not agree with what our neighbor does or says, but if it does not encroach on our lives who are we to judge. Let us judge universally. Freedom of speech is only freedom if the world can hear, completely free access. You may not agree with what I have to say, but I am willing to put it out there and let it be judged, you may change my opinion, I have an open mind, or I like to think so, you may offend me, but I do not expect to get through life without being offended or to offend others. What I would like more than anything else right now, is to know what deals are really being made behind the scenes governing OUR lives and who is scratching whose back and in what way. I don’t think we would be in such a state if all this information was free to all, without prejudice of race, sex, religion or social standing.
Gareth Young (and others):
“Could this Convention be a springboard to a Constitutional Convention?”
That is the last thing we need. What Charter 88 didn’t comprehend 20 years ago, and what proponents of this view (some of them very old frienmds of mine) don’t get now, is a basic matter of historical and political fact. Writing a constitution (or rewriting one) is something you do from a position of power. Constitutions are imposed to legitimate and entrench the sort of society that the victors think they want.
That is what the barons did in Magna Carta and in the Charter of the Forest AFTER they had humbled King John.
That is what Henry VIII did. Supremacy followed Star Chamber.
That is what parliament did in the Bill of Rights AFTER it had supplanted James by William.
That is what the Continental Congress did AFTER Yorktown, not before the Revolution.
That is the origin of the European Convention and the Universal Declaration that are revered as magic: they say
“We won, and this is why we are better than Hitler.”
And that is what the New Labour Project did after 1997, with an unprecedented majority and party discipline, and is still struggling to do. It was applauded for much of that time – until it was almost too late – by would-be constitional reformers, because it was astute enough to do use their buzzwords to characterise what it was doing in its slow-motion coup. If it hadn’t been for the war and the related cosying up to the US I strongly suspect many would not have woken and would still be applauding. Those more soaked in the ideas of the new corporate state sometimes called ‘civic republicanism’ still are.
Constitions are written and rewritten from power… by tight elite groups with a grasp of the meaning of power. They fail not from overreach but by failing to tailor the institutions to support and reinforce the new dispensation. Wide consultation and talking shops have no hope of creating something lasting. let alone imposing it.
If you want a new constitution, first you need a revolution in power. What *we* need to do is to foment a – peaceful, lawful, I hope – revolution in the name of liberty and the rule of law.
The first steps are resistance to halt the katabasis and provide a rallying point the forces. The accrescence of arbitrary official power hasn’t stopped because the great and good have noticed it happening. The moster no longer freezes when you look directly at it. It is already too powerful.
To be effective resistance needs to be formulated in a way that can be popular – which is not to say it must engage the lower mob, but it must engage a significant portion of significant people to turn public opinion and received wisdom sharply from a passive acceptance of whatever “They” impose on us all. Enough people must say – enough.
I agree with Ivor Cornish. The need to defend civil liberties is urgent and we can take the immediate actions he recommends. But this does not mean that we should eschew the longer-term effort to strengthen our political system by means of constitutional reform. We can, and should, do both – because without root-and-branch reform, British governments will retain the ability to suspend our rights as and when they see fit. A victory for liberty today can be reversed in cabinet, or even by royal prerogative, tomorrow.
That is the fundamental message that I believe we must take from the tide of illiberal, authoritarian legislation to which parliament has assented over the last decade or so.
I would like to see a clearer “Action” section on this website. I don’t mean to be critical when TCML is doing such a great job and this is just a beginning, but the “Action” menu on this site just takes me to lots of links, when what I want is a specific list of actions I can take right now, e.g. write to my MP about X; respond to today’s Times article about Y; book a protest on date Z into my diary.
It could perhaps take the form of a traditional forum with threads. People could post suggestions for actions as they come up. I think this needs to be simple and clear and organised, so that people can respond in a timely way to what is occurring in the political world and the media. Possibly this is already available on this website and I just haven’t found it yet?
I also think it may be helpful to formulate a clear, written list of goals. Then ways to achieve those goals can be slotted in and broken down into achievable steps that individuals can take.
May I suggest something that can be done right now.
Create a list of simple, one line requirements along the lines of “Repeal the Criminalisation of Freedom Act 2029″.
Stage two, run it up on all available media under a snappy title like the “The Articles of the Convention on Modern Liberty 2009″ and whip up commentary from papers and politicians.
Lastly, on a local basis, get the PPCs for all the relevant parties (ie probably not Labour) to sign up to the articles in a binding way and in turn to work on making the articles policy for their own parties.
If this is done in good time, the individuals and parties who accept the articles as policy could be allowed to display a badge on their handouts for the June elections saying as much.
I know this relies on holding politicians to promises, which many will feel is a forlorn hope, but it might work
I am one of those older surfers who remembers the 2nd World War and the fight against facism and I thought we defeated it. If we are not careful it will be back aided and
abetted by the EU who I am convinced hope to see of the
English Counties and create Regions the infrastructute is already in place. The press and media will never tell us the truth about the EU it seems they are struck dumb. I really do find your views about the new young leader misplaced to my mind Mr Blair was a conservative in the Thatcherite mold, a man who disliked trade unions and coveted the power barons along with the worst chancellor of the exchequer in living memory who caused many problems one of which is pensions. He single handidly changed the tax laws which undermined the pension funds and along with pension holidays taken by employers contributing to present day problems. I dont think we stand a chance with the two main
parties independent thinkers are required.
I think its time to shut up and let youth protest but I care for my children and grand children and I hate to think
that facism may be their lot.
I find the following proposals of great interest and I feel they are very much in the same area.
IVOR CORNISH – A CONVENTION MONITOR
A short list of questions should be drawn up and circulated to all M.P.’s, to see where they stand on civil liberties, on the understanding that this would be noted on the site.
Those that do not reply will also be noted.
The next stage could be a survey of the candidates for the next parliamentary election.
A convention before the election would then become be a vehicle to emphasise the need for the electorate to take note where candidates stand on civil liberties when they vote, and to help promote those who have committed themselves to defend these liberties, irrespective of party.
[I have elsewhere suggested a star system for MPs with a ‘failure star’ for those that fail to act on Liberty issues at all.]
IMOGEN
… what I want is a specific list of actions I can take right now, e.g. write to my MP about X; respond to today’s Times article about Y; book a protest on date Z into my diary.
It could perhaps take the form of a traditional forum with threads.
ANDREW MEREDITH
Create a list of simple, one line requirements along the lines of “Repeal the Criminalisation of Freedom Act 2029″.
Stage two, run it up on all available media under a snappy title like the “The Articles of the Convention on Modern Liberty 2009″ and whip up commentary from papers and politicians.
Lastly, on a local basis, get the PPCs for all the relevant parties (ie probably not Labour) to sign up to the articles in a binding way and in turn to work on making the articles policy for their own parties.
SIAN JOHN (me) I have proposed building local groups and affinity groups online. This is suppirtive of the above proposals. Groups’ members can feed in info to the Convention Monitor about MPs, plus info on demonstrations and what other organisations are doing – as there will be plenty of people belonging to other orgs.
Small groups can send challenges not only to MPs but to relevant Committees.
They can network key resources like lawyers, researchers, webdesigners.
I would also MUCH prefer a forum on which to network – gather info, discuss, post up campaigns and events. It’s much more compact and navigable than social networking design scripts.
Much easier to locate categories of data, and other people. Sorry but I’m finding the system here is dead in the water for making contacts and networking.
A good forum like Vbulletin costs little, has fantastic support, has private messaging, can support subgroups, excellent searches on members, messages, topics;
Some of its forums can be used like libraries to store files of info – quotes of relevant law, lists of MPs and their track records, etc.
i use Siteground as a host for my forums; very cheap (and not UK based) has a huge allowance of site space. They will also install a forum or other scripts either free or modest charge. Good support..
I do not feel that exposing the ‘civil liberty’ voting patterns of M.P.’s would be all that useful…. they should be given a chance, given the publicity before and since the convention, and possibly after receiving a Co.M.L. questionnaire to redeem themselves. Their previous sins should only be exposed given no redemption. I feel that many M.P.’s had little concept of the Garton Ash cuts ( Liberty in Britain is facing death by a thousand cuts. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/feb/19/civil-liberties-terrorism ) they were helping to administer at any one time.
A list of the laws which are most likely to affect the ability of groups, of all persuasions, to campaign should be circulated, and these groups/organisations ( there are hundreds of campaign groups around the country )should be encouraged to defend their rights via a Co.M.L. suggestions list. The broader the attack on this nonsense the harder it is for NuLab. to dismiss. The strength of the Convention on the 28th was it’s broad-base support.
These are really great posts. I’m going to read them closely. there is a great deal of catching up to do. I have just posted a comment over on James Graham’s blog.
http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2009/03/01/britain-when-will-you-rage/
He ran the action desk all day – a bit of a thankless task until towards the end. here it is:
First of all James thanks for your incredible patience and dedication. You did the job of a team. My own sense is that we were starting something, we are at the seed stage. It is much easier to inspire people to take a small action that is within their reach if they can see the larger goal. We are not there yet. The great thing about the Convention day is that it become a shared experience that there could be a larger goal not defined by the existing decomposing system (the latest decision by MPs to hide the address a small pustule of this). One that revives a more profound democratic culture that Henry blogs about in the Guardian. We need to draw strength from this as quickly as we can. But there is also another aspect of what you did. A wise man once talked to me about the symbolic importance of the unread article, with respect to openDemocracy. It’s not that he wants to read about North Korea but he wants to know that oD does write about it! In a similar way the action desk, light up Britain, Crowdvine, these are first learnings for us. But they were also hugely important demonstrations of our intent. Most people who came wanted to know that if they wanted to act we were there to help them do so, that it was not a closed event, that it was looking for growth. This greatly contributed to the positive feeling even though they were not yet ready to take the step themselves. Frustrating, yes, not pushed hard enough, of course, but a very important part of the day.
“What Next?” Indeed, that article makes for heavy and scary reading, but how many people who may be interested managed to wade through it though? Explaining exactly what is happening with our government and the political system is difficult to the man in the street, most do not want to know how it works, they only want it ‘to work’! They do not want to read through pages of political waffle, regardless of whether it contains information they should know or not.
Why should they care? As long as they are comfortable in their own homes, getting the man in the street to see how slowly and cunningly they are being controlled is going to be difficult, until it affects them directly, even then convincing others can be a trial in itself. All the time MPs and civil servants are having their deeds and movements hidden from the public eye, while more and more laws and cameras are making sure that almost anyone in a position of power can see where we have been and what we are doing, is this not the wrong way round? Should it not be those in power that are monitored by the people, rather than the reverse?
So much misinformation is available regarding why we ‘need’ to be monitored, that the issue is confusing for the man in the street, and there is a much simpler solution that does not need all this technology, decentralise, rather than have everything controlled from a central source, which makes everything remote, go back to local control, have an MP who is someone you know, have local policeman who will know the local area and its people. If you have, for instance, coppers on the street they will know what is going on in the community and be able to judge the best way to react to situations. How many people have met there local MP? or even know who he is or where he is from? Most do not really care, they only see him at election time and even then only his reps will appear at your door, if we meet and know our MPs it does make them far more accountable. Slowly there is a growing dissatisfaction with the way our lives are being controlled, this is far too slow for my liking, while the populace will not get off their backsides though nothing will change, correction, it will get worse and worse, until we will wake up and find ourselves subject to the whim of anyone with in authority.
Talking to some youngsters about fascism a few weeks ago I got this comment “Fascism? Yeah but that’s years ago, wont happen now!” The only experience most under 40 have of fascism is what they have seen in films and maybe the odd old news report, the extremes of government control, be it by fascism or communism, is so remote to their way of thinking that they cannot see where all this is leading, most feel that they are ‘free’ to do whatever they want without hindrance, the creeping control that is pervading our lives has been happening for most of their lifetimes. Today youngsters embrace technology, it is part of their lives, they can watch a film like Enemy of the state and think, wow that is cool that they can use satellites in that way, where as people like myself think, that’s scary! Can they really track us as easily as that?
Getting the message through the people that need to hear it is going to be hard work, getting people to listen long enough is difficult, they want short sharp pieces of information rather than long rambling diatribes that are hard to follow, we are in an age where we can glean so much information for ourselves from a myriad of sources, yet most rely on the news and the newspapers for 99% of our information, these are actually very limited resources if you compare them to the internet. A friend of mine pointed in the direction of this site, otherwise I might never have come across it, until they get really scared, people will not search out sites like this, there is a complacency in the general populace that is going to be hard to break down, getting the message out is one of the hardest things to do, getting people to actually listen to it is going to be even harder.
Jake Willis
Failed London Mayoral Candidate 2008
I am interested in helping to form/participate in a group in Exeter. Is there a mechanism for being put in touch with other supporters. Having fought the Government’s plans over the last five for seizing property without due process nor compensation, I know that there is enormous potential to irritate and confront civil servants and ministers as part of the process of fighting back.
Anyone who has read ‘Stasiland’ will know how information collection is the mechanism for corrupt state power.
Guy Herbert puts his finger on it. This is precisely what drew me into this campaign after a lifetime studiously detached from mainstream politics. With tens of thousands of others I marched on demonstrations without even making the papers or evening news. Since the guvmnt faced down a million marchers in 2003, got caught lying over Iraq and still got re-elected, it has known it can turn a blind eye to demands from the public.
At the last Iraq demo I marched on, speakers told us to demand this and demand that. But they are living in the past. The game has changed. As New Labour has repeatedly told us, we must all move on.
We must move on. We have to move from ‘demand’ to ‘insist’.
That crucial change of verb requires, as Guy writes, first taking power. The Conservatives are best placed to do it. They have promised to drag the National Identity Register out back and kill it. But they have too much form on this subject: think Michael Howard, for one. I cannot see them undertaking the root-and-branch purge that the LibDems have outlined in their Freedom Bill.
The LibDems have led on this topic. Cable’s star is high; this month he looks a plausible Chancellor.
There are many things to be done. But they all start, as Guy reminds us, with taking power. I see only one way to it: swarm to the banner the LibDems have raised, confirm this is the major electoral issue they would like it to be. Make it so. Hammer away at this subject inside the party best fitted to our work, revitalising it and making it a better defender of our rights. Do the hard, hard work of getting Commons seats for people sworn to this cause.
GUY HERBERT – We’re not as far apart as you think we are! Of course a constitutional settlement has to be negotiated from a position of power. That’s such a given that I failed to mention it in my OP.
STEPHEN TAYLOR – If we’re going to be serious about addressing where the power to frame a new settlement will lie, the tipping point could be the next General Election. Certainly the LibDems are the only party committed to reform – though they’ve been much too quiet about it of late for my taste – but given our voting system the chances of them forming a govt are pretty low. Should those of us who are interested in exploring this be working with Make Votes Count to try and ensure that the LibDems hold the balance in a hung Parliament – certainly a possibility – and lobbying them to be sure that constitutional reform is non-negotiable?
’swarm to the banner the LibDems’
Although I have much sympathy for this position the campaign must not align itself with any party for fear of alienating support from those who do not agree with other LibDem policies.
A broad coalition is vital.
read this and follow the instructions about what to do about it.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/7729972/Stages-of-Soviet-Subversion-Yuri-Bezmenov-Ex-KGB
It’s a pity Modern Liberty can’t be the fulcrum, the leader, THE Organisation to move this critical situation forward into the Public consciousness.
Spreading the load over various groups, supporting one Westminster party won’t give the movement the critical mass it needs. In my opinion!
John Levett says: “With the Liberal Democrats lagging in public perception and both Labour and Conservative Parties suffering from the ‘never again’ sentiment of an extremely disillusioned electorate, would these not be ideal circumstances in which to field ‘Modern Liberty’ candidates at the upcoming general election?”
I love this idea, I’d happily use my vote for this!
Bet there are a good enough numbers to make at least a decent statement.
Not wishing to pour cold water on this spontaneous outburst of collective dissent and progressive thought but I think we are kidding ourselves if we believe the next general election will prove a tipping point to rapid change – it won’t and the reason why is very obvious; FPTP
In precisely the same way as political élites are guilty of living in a “Westminster bubble of unreality” we are similarly deluding ourselves if we believe the general tone of outrage illustrated here is reflected widely in mainstream public opinion – it isn’t. We (as informed and interested spectators on the democratic political process) may be passionately concerned but many, many more amongst the general public are simply worried about keeping their jobs and maintaining the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed. They’ll vote for whichever credible (under FPTP) political vehicle offers them a realistic chance of achieving that relatively limited goal.
Where the next general election can offer an opportunity for meaningful change is the window of public interest that will open up during the two month period prior to the actual vote. During that eight to ten week period (perhaps 1st March – 6th May 2010?) it might be possible to influence the general debate and focus its attention on the UK’s dysfunctional form of governance.
If we are sufficiently well organised and coordinated in the message we convey during this potentially seminal period, it could signal a watershed moment in UK constitutional history but as many here have commented, the route to irrevocable change is through power and legitimate power can only be gained through the ballot box. That’s why the core of the argument, at least in the UK, always returns to the voting method.
I’d also like to remind readers here that the campaigning spirit of Charter88 lives on in Unlock Democracy and Make Votes Count. We might not have the charisma of Charter’s early radical period but we are organised and our core message resonates with the public whenever we are granted an opportunity to put it across. What we lack is resources and I’m not referring to dosh (although that always comes in handy) – no, what we really need are people willing to stand and contribute to the campaign.
Just two dozen committed and well organised activists in every major town and city across the UK, conveying a coordinated and coherent message about democratic renewal during the period referred to above, would significantly raise the profile of the laudable goals we all seek.
Peter Davidson
Local Group Coordinator for Unlock Democracy & Make Votes Count in Greater Manchester
One of the most important points to emerge from the Convention was the link between rights and power: speaker after speaker acknowledged that rights are neither self-enacting nor self-enforcing. So the question is how to orient power to protect rights. I spoke in one of the afternoon sessions about the Levellers’ post-partisanship — liberty has to be more than a party-political programme, and to recognise friends across the aisle. But post-partisanship presupposes partisanship: liberty has to be both a party cause as well as a trans-partisan one. And so for the next step, I’m with those who say that it has to be taken within each of the political parties. Each party needs to be harried by members, and voters, who push it to make commitments, and who devise clever ways of holding the party to its commitments once in power (through embarrassment, protest, stunts if necessary…) Only if protection for civil liberties is seen to become a voting issue will there be the political muscle to make it count.
Someone suggested using the Constitution of South Africa as a model. I believe a far better one to be inspired by is the new constitution of the Canton of Zurich – and by the process (constitutional convention elected by the citizens, with the final draft constitution submitted to referendum).
I have independently translated the constitution and could make it available.
I work with the Initiative and Referendum Institute Europe.
I am all for having a written constitution but at a time when our rights are being eroded at such a rate I feel the fight against existing and proposed laws is more pressing.
Take for instance one of the the latest shots across our bow, reported in the Telegraph on the 14th March.
‘The travel plans and personal details of every holidaymaker, business traveller and day-tripper who leaves Britain are to be tracked by the Government, the Daily Telegraph can disclose.’
‘Passengers leaving every international sea port, station or airport will have to supply detailed personal information as well as their travel plans. So-called “booze crusiers” who cross the Channel for a couple of hours to stock up on wine, beer and cigarettes will be subject to the rules. ‘
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/4987415/All-travel-plans-to-be-tracked-by-Government.html
If this comes about we will have to notify a government agency ( probably a private company based in the U.S. ) that we would like to leave the country, and provide 24 hours notice of our intentions.
Otherwise risk a fine of up to £5,000.
Henry Porter, in a debate that was far too short, discussed this on the ‘You and Yours’ radio program this morning.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/youandyours/
I read somewhere, that part of Labour’s anti-terror legislation includes restrictions on the size of protest meetings. Yet another example of an unnecessary barrier, to the legitimate right to protest. Surely, this Government can distinguish between a genuine desire to protest and civil unrest? Indeed, any large gathering is far more likely to influence public opinion or media reporting. But of course, that is the opposite of what Labour are trying to achieve.
Critics often claim that we are simply paranoid. And yes, there are some who exagerate the severity of the current situation. Even so, it is a free(yet secure)future which we must endeavour to maintain.
really good article…
I must say, its worth it! My link:http://xseytgu.bloggr.no/ ,many Thanks….