Phillip Pullman

[Guest alex]

Malevolent voices that despise our freedoms

 

Are such things done on Albion’s shore?

 

The image of this nation that haunts me most powerfully is that of the sleeping giant Albion in William Blake’s prophetic books. Sleep, profound and inveterate slumber: that is the condition of Britain today.

We do not know what is happening to us. In the world outside, great events take place, great figures move and act, great matters unfold, and this nation of Albion murmurs and stirs while malevolent voices whisper in the darkness - the voices of the new laws that are silently strangling the old freedoms the nation still dreams it enjoys.

 

We are so fast asleep that we don’t know who we are any more. Are we English? Scottish? Welsh? British? More than one of them? One but not another? Are we a Christian nation - after all we have an Established Church - or are we something post-Christian? Are we a secular state? Are we a multifaith state? Are we anything we can all agree on and feel proud of?

 

The new laws whisper:

 

You don’t know who you are

 

You’re mistaken about yourself

 

We know better than you do what you consist of, what labels apply to you, which facts about you are important and which are worthless

 

We do not believe you can be trusted to know these things, so we shall know them for you

And if we take against you, we shall remove from your possession the only proof we shall allow to be recognised

 

The sleeping nation dreams it has the freedom to speak its mind. It fantasises about making tyrants cringe with the bluff bold vigour of its ancient right to express its opinions in the street. This is what the new laws say about that:

 

Expressing an opinion is a dangerous activity

 

Whatever your opinions are, we don’t want to hear them

 

So if you threaten us or our friends with your opinions we shall treat you like the rabble you are

 

And we do not want to hear you arguing about it

 

So hold your tongue and forget about protesting

 

What we want from you is acquiescence

 

The nation dreams it is a democratic state where the laws were made by freely elected representatives who were answerable to the people. It used to be such a nation once, it dreams, so it must be that nation still. It is a sweet dream.

 

You are not to be trusted with laws

 

So we shall put ourselves out of your reach

 

We shall put ourselves beyond your amendment or abolition

 

You do not need to argue about any changes we make, or to debate them, or to send your representatives to vote against them

 

You do not need to hold us to account

 

You think you will get what you want from an inquiry?

 

Who do you think you are?

 

What sort of fools do you think we are?

 

The nation’s dreams are troubled, sometimes; dim rumours reach our sleeping ears, rumours that all is not well in the administration of justice; but an ancient spell murmurs through our somnolence, and we remember that the courts are bound to seek the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and we turn over and sleep soundly again.

 

And the new laws whisper:

 

We do not want to hear you talking about truth

 

Truth is a friend of yours, not a friend of ours

 

We have a better friend called hearsay, who is a witness we can always rely on

 

We do not want to hear you talking about innocence

 

Innocent means guilty of things not yet done

 

We do not want to hear you talking about the right to silence

 

You need to be told what silence means: it means guilt

 

We do not want to hear you talking about justice

 

Justice is whatever we want to do to you

 

And nothing else

 

Are we conscious of being watched, as we sleep? Are we aware of an ever-open eye at the corner of every street, of a watching presence in the very keyboards we type our messages on? The new laws don’t mind if we are. They don’t think we care about it.

 

We want to watch you day and night

 

We think you are abject enough to feel safe when we watch you

 

We can see you have lost all sense of what is proper to a free people

 

We can see you have abandoned modesty

 

Some of our friends have seen to that

 

They have arranged for you to find modesty contemptible

 

In a thousand ways they have led you to think that whoever does not want to be watched must have something shameful to hide

 

We want you to feel that solitude is frightening and unnatural

 

We want you to feel that being watched is the natural state of things

 

One of the pleasant fantasies that consoles us in our sleep is that we are a sovereign nation, and safe within our borders. This is what the new laws say about that:

 

We know who our friends are

 

And when our friends want to have words with one of you

 

We shall make it easy for them to take you away to a country where you will learn that you have more fingernails than you need

 

It will be no use bleating that you know of no offence you have committed under British law

 

It is for us to know what your offence is

 

Angering our friends is an offence

 

It is inconceivable to me that a waking nation in the full consciousness of its freedom would have allowed its government to pass such laws as the Protection from Harassment Act (1997), the Crime and Disorder Act (1998), the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000), the Terrorism Act (2000), the Criminal Justice and Police Act (2001), the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act (2001), the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Extension Act (2002), the Criminal Justice Act (2003), the Extradition Act (2003), the Anti-Social Behaviour Act (2003), the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act (2004), the Civil Contingencies Act (2004), the Prevention of Terrorism Act (2005), the Inquiries Act (2005), the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (2005), not to mention a host of pending legislation such as the Identity Cards Bill, the Coroners and Justice Bill, and the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill.

 

Inconceivable.

 

And those laws say:

 

Sleep, you stinking cowards

 

Sweating as you dream of rights and freedoms

 

Freedom is too hard for you

 

We shall decide what freedom is

 

Sleep, you vermin

 

Sleep, you scum.

Stumbled across this. To add some intrigue to its content, this was (supposedly) printed in the Times and put on their website but subsequently pulled from it shortly afterwards. Anyone heard about this or know if it's an internet hoax?

[Ketsbaia 0]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/c...icle5811412.ece

 

On the Times website but doesn't look like it was ever pulled.

[Park Life 71]

Preparations grow apace for the arrival of the dark one.

Edited March 11, 2009 by Park Life

[Park Life 71]

Winston Smith scurried away from the inner sanctum worried and confused if not drained of the will to live:

 

"The statement said: "BCS believes strongly that the process being used to introduce Information Sharing Orders as part of a much larger Bill concerned with other matters precludes sufficient public debate, discussion and Parliamentary scrutiny of proposals that involve novel and very general - some would say draconian - powers of great significance to every UK citizen and organisation."

 

Ian Ryder, BCS deputy CEO, said all the responses received from members agreed on one thing: "These proposals are far too ill-defined and general for their stated purpose, and are as a result potentially dangerous, and will do more harm than good."

 

Ryder added that the laws, used wrongly, "would permit the restriction - and ultimately the destruction - of the right to personal and corporate data privacy".

 

The British Medical Association has also criticised the bill, and asked what problem the law was trying to solve. "The BMA is not aware of any problems with legitmate information exchanges to which this clause would be the solution."

 

The doctors' group said that clause 152 of the bill "could potentially allow any Health Secretary access to individual health records. And it is very worrying that this Bill would allow a Secretay of State to strip patients and doctors of rights in relation to the control of sensitive health information."

[Guest alex]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/c...icle5811412.ece

 

On the Times website but doesn't look like it was ever pulled.

Seems like the bit about it being pulled (said it was on the site I saw this on) may be hoax.

 

Raises some interesting points like.

[Fop 1]

[ChezGiven 0]

Anyone feel less free since 1997?

 

I dont.

[Fop 1]

Anyone feel less free since 1997?

 

I dont.

Anyone live in the UK?

 

Although that is the whole point about

[Guest alex]

Anyone feel less free since 1997?

 

I dont.

I do feel like liberty is being gradually eaten away, which is a slightly different thing I suppose.

[manc-mag 1]

Anyone feel less free since 1997?

 

I dont.

I do feel like liberty is being gradually eaten away, which is a slightly different thing I suppose.

 

 

I think the obvious counterpoint to the article is the move away from the traditional system of 'liberties' towards a rights based system since the coming into force of the Human Rights Act 1998. In practice these days human rights arguments occur routinely in even the most standard litigation and I don't think this can be underestimated. It is completely pervasive.

 

Flowery language to one side, of the stuff thrown up by the piece (which was a good read), the concern for me is rendition. I think that should be a concern for anyone simply because it completely bypasses legal process. At the same time I think that it's a completely separate argument though those very reasons. Obviously at the moment it is denied, so that has to be borne in mind, but if I'm honest I suspect it probably has happened. That said I think it probably has always happened in escalated circumstances and always will in one guise or another.

[ChezGiven 0]

Interesting story

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/1...ban-afghanistan

[snakehips 0]

It is inconceivable to me that a waking nation in the full consciousness of its freedom would have allowed its government to pass such laws as the Protection from Harassment Act (1997), the Crime and Disorder Act (1998), the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000), the Terrorism Act (2000), the Criminal Justice and Police Act (2001), the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act (2001), the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Extension Act (2002), the Criminal Justice Act (2003), the Extradition Act (2003), the Anti-Social Behaviour Act (2003), the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act (2004), the Civil Contingencies Act (2004), the Prevention of Terrorism Act (2005), the Inquiries Act (2005), the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (2005), not to mention a host of pending legislation such as the Identity Cards Bill, the Coroners and Justice Bill, and the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill.

Stumbled across this. To add some intrigue to its content, this was (supposedly) printed in the Times and put on their website but subsequently pulled from it shortly afterwards. Anyone heard about this or know if it's an internet hoax?

 

The crux of his argument seems to be the bit above. Basically what he's saying is that he doesn't like the above legislation and that anyone who does is aleep (or, in other words, stupid). Now I, along with most folk in UK, haven't studied the legislation he mentions so we can't really tell what it entails. He obviously has studied it, and is telling us it's crap. However, no matter how much he thinks it is crap (and he could well be right for all I know) the legislation has passed through parliament, which means plenty of folk have studied the details and a majority of them have seen fit to pass it, regardless of what Mr B thinks to the contrary.

[Guest alex]

It is inconceivable to me that a waking nation in the full consciousness of its freedom would have allowed its government to pass such laws as the Protection from Harassment Act (1997), the Crime and Disorder Act (1998), the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000), the Terrorism Act (2000), the Criminal Justice and Police Act (2001), the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act (2001), the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Extension Act (2002), the Criminal Justice Act (2003), the Extradition Act (2003), the Anti-Social Behaviour Act (2003), the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act (2004), the Civil Contingencies Act (2004), the Prevention of Terrorism Act (2005), the Inquiries Act (2005), the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (2005), not to mention a host of pending legislation such as the Identity Cards Bill, the Coroners and Justice Bill, and the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill.

Stumbled across this. To add some intrigue to its content, this was (supposedly) printed in the Times and put on their website but subsequently pulled from it shortly afterwards. Anyone heard about this or know if it's an internet hoax?

 

The crux of his argument seems to be the bit above. Basically what he's saying is that he doesn't like the above legislation and that anyone who does is aleep (or, in other words, stupid). Now I, along with most folk in UK, haven't studied the legislation he mentions so we can't really tell what it entails. He obviously has studied it, and is telling us it's crap. However, no matter how much he thinks it is crap (and he could well be right for all I know) the legislation has passed through parliament, which means plenty of folk have studied the details and a majority of them have seen fit to pass it, regardless of what Mr B thinks to the contrary.

I do agree with what you say to an extent there, but there's more to the process than that I suppose. I haven't studied what he is on about either but I think the piece is interesting, if a bit OTT. But to expand on what you say, the democratic process perhaps isn't as democractic as it seems. You have a government with a big majority (especially in the first two terms in this case) despite them only getting 40-odd % of the vote and probably (at a guess) a 40-odd % turnout. This makes the exectutive - i.e. the cabinet powerful enough to ride rough-shod over any rebellion and you've then got the whip which basically means vote as we say or your political career is effectively over (or at least it can mean that). I do think any chipping away at liberties is exactly that, gradually chipping away. I'm not so much really worried as concerned about the things that have been brought in and that the government is trying to bring in in the name of protecting us in the so-called 'war against terror' and so on.

[manc-mag 1]

It is inconceivable to me that a waking nation in the full consciousness of its freedom would have allowed its government to pass such laws as the Protection from Harassment Act (1997), the Crime and Disorder Act (1998), the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000), the Terrorism Act (2000), the Criminal Justice and Police Act (2001), the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act (2001), the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Extension Act (2002), the Criminal Justice Act (2003), the Extradition Act (2003), the Anti-Social Behaviour Act (2003), the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act (2004), the Civil Contingencies Act (2004), the Prevention of Terrorism Act (2005), the Inquiries Act (2005), the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (2005), not to mention a host of pending legislation such as the Identity Cards Bill, the Coroners and Justice Bill, and the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill.

Stumbled across this. To add some intrigue to its content, this was (supposedly) printed in the Times and put on their website but subsequently pulled from it shortly afterwards. Anyone heard about this or know if it's an internet hoax?

 

The crux of his argument seems to be the bit above. Basically what he's saying is that he doesn't like the above legislation and that anyone who does is aleep (or, in other words, stupid). Now I, along with most folk in UK, haven't studied the legislation he mentions so we can't really tell what it entails. He obviously has studied it, and is telling us it's crap. However, no matter how much he thinks it is crap (and he could well be right for all I know) the legislation has passed through parliament, which means plenty of folk have studied the details and a majority of them have seen fit to pass it, regardless of what Mr B thinks to the contrary.

 

 

That's why I draw a distinction between what he says about rendition and what he says about legitimate acts of Parliament tbh.

 

It's also why the Human Rights Act is such a glaring omission from the piece (a deliberate one, obviously).

 

You're right about what it boils down to as well-a democratic process has passed measures he doesn't like and he's having a go about it. That's democracy in all it's strength and weakness. It's just his opinion and he's using his freedom of speech to express it.

[snakehips 0]

It is inconceivable to me that a waking nation in the full consciousness of its freedom would have allowed its government to pass such laws as the Protection from Harassment Act (1997), the Crime and Disorder Act (1998), the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000), the Terrorism Act (2000), the Criminal Justice and Police Act (2001), the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act (2001), the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Extension Act (2002), the Criminal Justice Act (2003), the Extradition Act (2003), the Anti-Social Behaviour Act (2003), the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act (2004), the Civil Contingencies Act (2004), the Prevention of Terrorism Act (2005), the Inquiries Act (2005), the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (2005), not to mention a host of pending legislation such as the Identity Cards Bill, the Coroners and Justice Bill, and the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill.

Stumbled across this. To add some intrigue to its content, this was (supposedly) printed in the Times and put on their website but subsequently pulled from it shortly afterwards. Anyone heard about this or know if it's an internet hoax?

 

The crux of his argument seems to be the bit above. Basically what he's saying is that he doesn't like the above legislation and that anyone who does is aleep (or, in other words, stupid). Now I, along with most folk in UK, haven't studied the legislation he mentions so we can't really tell what it entails. He obviously has studied it, and is telling us it's crap. However, no matter how much he thinks it is crap (and he could well be right for all I know) the legislation has passed through parliament, which means plenty of folk have studied the details and a majority of them have seen fit to pass it, regardless of what Mr B thinks to the contrary.

I do agree with what you say to an extent there, but there's more to the process than that I suppose. I haven't studied what he is on about either but I think the piece is interesting, if a bit OTT. But to expand on what you say, the democratic process perhaps isn't as democractic as it seems. You have a government with a big majority (especially in the first two terms in this case) despite them only getting 40-odd % of the vote and probably (at a guess) a 40-odd % turnout. This makes the exectutive - i.e. the cabinet powerful enough to ride rough-shod over any rebellion and you've then got the whip which basically means vote as we say or your political career is effectively over (or at least it can mean that). I do think any chipping away at liberties is exactly that, gradually chipping away. I'm not so much really worried as concerned about the things that have been brought in and that the government is trying to bring in in the name of protecting us in the so-called 'war against terror' and so on.

 

I may be completely wrong, but I honestly believe that if New Labour came up with something so bad and so outrageously wrong, that the back benchers would not kow tow, no matter how much of a whip the executive put on it. I really believe that to be the case.

[manc-mag 1]

It is inconceivable to me that a waking nation in the full consciousness of its freedom would have allowed its government to pass such laws as the Protection from Harassment Act (1997), the Crime and Disorder Act (1998), the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000), the Terrorism Act (2000), the Criminal Justice and Police Act (2001), the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act (2001), the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Extension Act (2002), the Criminal Justice Act (2003), the Extradition Act (2003), the Anti-Social Behaviour Act (2003), the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act (2004), the Civil Contingencies Act (2004), the Prevention of Terrorism Act (2005), the Inquiries Act (2005), the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (2005), not to mention a host of pending legislation such as the Identity Cards Bill, the Coroners and Justice Bill, and the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill.

Stumbled across this. To add some intrigue to its content, this was (supposedly) printed in the Times and put on their website but subsequently pulled from it shortly afterwards. Anyone heard about this or know if it's an internet hoax?

 

The crux of his argument seems to be the bit above. Basically what he's saying is that he doesn't like the above legislation and that anyone who does is aleep (or, in other words, stupid). Now I, along with most folk in UK, haven't studied the legislation he mentions so we can't really tell what it entails. He obviously has studied it, and is telling us it's crap. However, no matter how much he thinks it is crap (and he could well be right for all I know) the legislation has passed through parliament, which means plenty of folk have studied the details and a majority of them have seen fit to pass it, regardless of what Mr B thinks to the contrary.

I do agree with what you say to an extent there, but there's more to the process than that I suppose. I haven't studied what he is on about either but I think the piece is interesting, if a bit OTT. But to expand on what you say, the democratic process perhaps isn't as democractic as it seems. You have a government with a big majority (especially in the first two terms in this case) despite them only getting 40-odd % of the vote and probably (at a guess) a 40-odd % turnout. This makes the exectutive - i.e. the cabinet powerful enough to ride rough-shod over any rebellion and you've then got the whip which basically means vote as we say or your political career is effectively over (or at least it can mean that). I do think any chipping away at liberties is exactly that, gradually chipping away. I'm not so much really worried as concerned about the things that have been brought in and that the government is trying to bring in in the name of protecting us in the so-called 'war against terror' and so on.

 

Also true. I don't think they can take the blame for outrageously stripping us of our liberties and voter apathy at the same time though, if you can see where I'm coming from in saying that?

[Guest alex]

It is inconceivable to me that a waking nation in the full consciousness of its freedom would have allowed its government to pass such laws as the Protection from Harassment Act (1997), the Crime and Disorder Act (1998), the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000), the Terrorism Act (2000), the Criminal Justice and Police Act (2001), the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act (2001), the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Extension Act (2002), the Criminal Justice Act (2003), the Extradition Act (2003), the Anti-Social Behaviour Act (2003), the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act (2004), the Civil Contingencies Act (2004), the Prevention of Terrorism Act (2005), the Inquiries Act (2005), the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (2005), not to mention a host of pending legislation such as the Identity Cards Bill, the Coroners and Justice Bill, and the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill.

Stumbled across this. To add some intrigue to its content, this was (supposedly) printed in the Times and put on their website but subsequently pulled from it shortly afterwards. Anyone heard about this or know if it's an internet hoax?

 

The crux of his argument seems to be the bit above. Basically what he's saying is that he doesn't like the above legislation and that anyone who does is aleep (or, in other words, stupid). Now I, along with most folk in UK, haven't studied the legislation he mentions so we can't really tell what it entails. He obviously has studied it, and is telling us it's crap. However, no matter how much he thinks it is crap (and he could well be right for all I know) the legislation has passed through parliament, which means plenty of folk have studied the details and a majority of them have seen fit to pass it, regardless of what Mr B thinks to the contrary.

I do agree with what you say to an extent there, but there's more to the process than that I suppose. I haven't studied what he is on about either but I think the piece is interesting, if a bit OTT. But to expand on what you say, the democratic process perhaps isn't as democractic as it seems. You have a government with a big majority (especially in the first two terms in this case) despite them only getting 40-odd % of the vote and probably (at a guess) a 40-odd % turnout. This makes the exectutive - i.e. the cabinet powerful enough to ride rough-shod over any rebellion and you've then got the whip which basically means vote as we say or your political career is effectively over (or at least it can mean that). I do think any chipping away at liberties is exactly that, gradually chipping away. I'm not so much really worried as concerned about the things that have been brought in and that the government is trying to bring in in the name of protecting us in the so-called 'war against terror' and so on.

 

I may be completely wrong, but I honestly believe that if New Labour came up with something so bad and so outrageously wrong, that the back benchers would not kow tow, no matter how much of a whip the executive put on it. I really believe that to be the case.

I do really, I was just thinking aloud as it were (sort of). I do feel concerned about certain things like the unchecked rise of CCTV, conditions on where and when you can protest that didn't previously exist (around Parliament e.g. iirc - I remember reading about it in the Times) and the introduction of ID cards (expensive and ineffective at what they're supposed to be for imo). It's not like I think we're turning into a totalitarian police state overnight, I just think we need to be watchful. I'm as apathetic as the next person when it comes down to it so I suppose I'm a hypocrite (that's what they want though © Parky ).

[Guest alex]

It is inconceivable to me that a waking nation in the full consciousness of its freedom would have allowed its government to pass such laws as the Protection from Harassment Act (1997), the Crime and Disorder Act (1998), the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000), the Terrorism Act (2000), the Criminal Justice and Police Act (2001), the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act (2001), the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Extension Act (2002), the Criminal Justice Act (2003), the Extradition Act (2003), the Anti-Social Behaviour Act (2003), the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act (2004), the Civil Contingencies Act (2004), the Prevention of Terrorism Act (2005), the Inquiries Act (2005), the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (2005), not to mention a host of pending legislation such as the Identity Cards Bill, the Coroners and Justice Bill, and the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill.

Stumbled across this. To add some intrigue to its content, this was (supposedly) printed in the Times and put on their website but subsequently pulled from it shortly afterwards. Anyone heard about this or know if it's an internet hoax?

 

The crux of his argument seems to be the bit above. Basically what he's saying is that he doesn't like the above legislation and that anyone who does is aleep (or, in other words, stupid). Now I, along with most folk in UK, haven't studied the legislation he mentions so we can't really tell what it entails. He obviously has studied it, and is telling us it's crap. However, no matter how much he thinks it is crap (and he could well be right for all I know) the legislation has passed through parliament, which means plenty of folk have studied the details and a majority of them have seen fit to pass it, regardless of what Mr B thinks to the contrary.

I do agree with what you say to an extent there, but there's more to the process than that I suppose. I haven't studied what he is on about either but I think the piece is interesting, if a bit OTT. But to expand on what you say, the democratic process perhaps isn't as democractic as it seems. You have a government with a big majority (especially in the first two terms in this case) despite them only getting 40-odd % of the vote and probably (at a guess) a 40-odd % turnout. This makes the exectutive - i.e. the cabinet powerful enough to ride rough-shod over any rebellion and you've then got the whip which basically means vote as we say or your political career is effectively over (or at least it can mean that). I do think any chipping away at liberties is exactly that, gradually chipping away. I'm not so much really worried as concerned about the things that have been brought in and that the government is trying to bring in in the name of protecting us in the so-called 'war against terror' and so on.

 

Also true. I don't think they can take the blame for outrageously stripping us of our liberties and voter apathy at the same time though, if you can see where I'm coming from in saying that?

Indeed.

[manc-mag 1]

Touching on what you said Alex, for what it's worth I think items like the OP piece (and ensuing debate) show how we are watchful/mindful. The article is a polarised view which is useful at the outset in stimulating debate. I think pieces like that lose their value as a reference tool thereafter though, but then they've served their purpose so all well and good.

 

I think where I differ from the piece is in the fundamental assumption that government's are essentially malevolent in introducing the legislation (I don't know whether he does actually believe that either for the record, it could just as easily be literary licence to provoke a response from the reader-and if so then fair enough for the reasons above). I think some people do believe that government is essentially malevolent though and sadly this can really frustrate the debate once it's properly up and running. You tend to find these people have a only a very tentative grip on reality.

[Tooj 17]

I don't think I can take it like when Sammy actually comes across all clever. I feel like I'm in some sort of Parallel Universe. Next Shinton will make me chuckle.

[Fop 1]

Anyone feel less free since 1997?

 

I dont.

I do feel like liberty is being gradually eaten away, which is a slightly different thing I suppose.

 

 

I think the obvious counterpoint to the article is the move away from the traditional system of 'liberties' towards a rights based system since the coming into force of the Human Rights Act 1998. In practice these days human rights arguments occur routinely in even the most standard litigation and I don't think this can be underestimated. It is completely pervasive.

 

Flowery language to one side, of the stuff thrown up by the piece (which was a good read), the concern for me is rendition. I think that should be a concern for anyone simply because it completely bypasses legal process. At the same time I think that it's a completely separate argument though those very reasons. Obviously at the moment it is denied, so that has to be borne in mind, but if I'm honest I suspect it probably has happened. That said I think it probably has always happened in escalated circumstances and always will in one guise or another.

 

ANY SIMILARITY BETWEEN LAW AND JUSTICE IS PURELY COINCIDENTAL

 

I'm sure something similar can be said about human rights/freedom and human rights law.