Philip Johnston
Sky High
Win Sky+HD for a year and a trip to Barcelona
Navigation - link to other main sections from here
From The Times
July 20, 2007
Are we a free country any more?
History will remember this Government for its assault on liberty
In his first statement to Parliament as Prime Minister, Gordon Brown said: “Britain is rightly proud to be the pioneer of the modern liberties of the individual.” Little noticed among the cascade of pronouncements about constitutional reform, was a promise to reconsider the ban on unlicensed political protest in the vicinity of the Palace of Westminster. Mr Brown implied that when it came to balancing the need for public order with the right to public dissent, this was a law too far.
A commitment to personal liberty is only to be expected from a British prime minister, and especially from a son of the manse brought up in Adam Smith’s home town. Yet Mr Brown sat in a Cabinet that did more than any other in recent years to alter the balance in the relationship between the State and the individual.
If Clement Attlee is remembered for postwar welfare provision and the NHS, Harold Wilson for Sixties’ optimism, Edward Heath for joining Europe, James Callaghan for the Winter of Discontent, Margaret Thatcher for reducing the size of government and John Major, however unfairly, for sleaze, then we will look back on the Blair years as marking a serial assault by the State on the civil liberties of the citizen.
The State always wants to limit the liberties of its people. But it is normally restrained by an executive that understands the limits of illiberalism or is contained by a Parliament that considers itself to be a guardian of freedoms.
Related Links
For a number of reasons, neither of these brakes was applied under Tony Blair’s premiership. The huge Commons majority he enjoyed, the craven pusillanimity of his party, the implosion of the Conservatives and the consequent absence of opposition, other than in the Lords – and, to an extent, in the courts – conspired with a genuine, though irrational, fear of terrorism and rising street crime to let the State take greater control over the citizen than it has enjoyed before in modern peacetime.
Under Mr Blair, the State recaptured territory that it must have thought had been buried forever under a mountain of human rights laws and beneath all the freedoms that would normally make it more difficult to control the individual, such as ease of communication and of movement. But the technology that has made us feel freer has also given the State the wherewithal to keep control over us and to say that it does so for our own good.
This assault has come from many directions. Surveillance of a sophistication never dreamt of in Orwell’s worst nightmares; the gradual dismantling of the judicial protections afforded to defendants in criminal cases, even to the point of questioning the presumption of innocence; the criminalisation of dozens of activities that would never previously have been considered unlawful; the limits on freedom of speech; restrictions on movement and detention without trial or even charge; and the creation of databases containing information on us all and which will track the movements of our children and theirs from cradle to grave.
As Mr Brown conceded in the Commons, freedom of expression is a basic liberty that risks being eroded, a statement that seems at odds with a world of incessant internet chatter and unrestrained blogging. Despite this, probably not since John Milton railed against restrictions on the press in the 17th century has this country been so confused about where the boundaries of free speech lie. People used to be free under the criminal law to speak their minds, provided they did not incite others to commit violence or infringe public order.
Speaker’s Corner, in Hyde Park, London, came to symbolise a democratic tradition of which the country was proud and whose parameters were also understood. Rabble-rousers trying to whip up the mob have never been the beneficiaries of this latitude. Parliament Square was, rightly, off limits to rioters but a magnet for those who wanted to shout in the ear of their legislators. Now, unless permission is granted, it is not even possible to whisper criticism of the Government.
Maya Evans found this out when she stood by the Cenotaph to recite the names of Britain’s Iraqi war dead. For this she was arrested, arraigned and left with a criminal record. It is hard to conceive of a police officer a generation ago taking any notice of her since she was causing no public order problem at all.
But Ms Evans had fallen foul of a clause in the Serious and Organised Crime and Police Act which established a one kilometre zone around the Palace of Westminster, within whose boundaries political criticism can be voiced only on application to the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.
Or ask Lynette Burrows about free speech. She had offered her opinion on the radio that two homosexual men should not be allowed to adopt a boy, which is a view with which you may agree or disagree, but does not warrant a call from the local constabulary. She was told that, although a crime had not been committed, it was policy to record details of such complaints, so Mrs Burrows is now, presumably, on some sinister register of people who express views that are not considered acceptable. Needless to say, she was flabbergasted to receive such a call. “This is a free country and we are entitled to express opinions on matters of public interest,” she said.
But are we a free country any longer? Were we ever? It is said, though less often now than it used to be, that the basis of English liberty is the rule of law, under which everything is allowed unless specifically prohibited. According to A.V. Dicey, the 19th-century constitutionalist, this was one of the features that distinguished England from its continental counterparts, where people were subject to the exercise of arbitrary power and were actions that where not specifically authorised were proscribed.
Effectively, this principle limited the scope of the State to intervene in people’s lives. Law set the boundaries of personal action but did not dictate the course of such action. Some limitations on personal freedom are introduced ostensibly for our own good and some, obviously, predate the Blair Government, such as the compulsory wearing of seat belts in cars and a requirement to wear a crash helmet on a motorbike; but, since 1997, the pace of proscription has grown alarmingly, encompassing smacking to smoking.
Another aspect of liberty is privacy. It may be hard to believe in a world where people crave televised notoriety that there are still many who cherish anonymity. In a truly free society it should be possible for someone who does not wish to come to the attention of the state to remain unnoticed provided he breaks no laws. As A. J. P. Taylor observed, before the First World War the average citizen’s interaction with the Government was largely limited to paying tax.
“He could live where he liked and as he liked,” the great historian wrote. “He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission.”
Of one thing he could be certain and that was the inviolability of his home. But recent research has uncovered 266 separate powers under which the police and other state agents can enter your home, often using force to do so.
The proliferation of state databases, again very much a recent development, has also rendered the concept of the private individual a thing of the past, and from the earliest age. We are, almost without realising it, becoming the most snooped-on democratic nation on earth, electronically tracked from cot to coffin, our most personal details to be stored for ever, all in the name of modernisation, efficiency and, we are told, our own good.
When it comes to softening up the country for an ID card, the Home Office has been prepared to play a very long game. As Peter Lilley, the former minister who led the Cabinet revolt that resulted in the abandonment of the last ID scheme, observed: “There is no policy that has been hawked, unsold, around Whitehall for longer than identity cards. It was always brought to us as a solution looking for problems.”
September 11 and the threat from international terrorism was the problem it had most been looking for. The dust was duly blown from the plan the Tories had rejected and resubmitted to the Blair administration, tweaked to reflect the latest justification for its disinterment and given the added lure that played to new Labour’s modernistic fetishism: biometrics.
Suddenly, ID cards became a panacea and civil liberties considerations were simply brushed aside. Ministers decreed that the argument had been won “in principle”. Tony Blair emphasised the personal benefit of having a national identity system, as though it were being established solely for the benefit of the citizen, and merely facilitated by the State.
Yet even to conduct this debate exclusively around the practicalities of an ID card system is to find the arguments of ministers thoroughly unconvincing. Just because biometric technology is available does not justify fingerprinting the entire population, nor does it necessarily give us a secure identity. However sophisticated the system, there will be false matches and false nonmatches, and these increase in number the larger the database.
The innocent will be most inconvenienced – or even criminalised – by these inevitable glitches, accused of being someone they are not or not accepted as who they are. Crooks will simply find a way of attacking the system, and the temptation to do so will be all the greater precisely because people are being falsely led to believe that it will be foolproof.
There are people who remember carrying the old wartime ID cards, scrapped in 1952, and cannot see what all the fuss is about. It is about the database, not the card. This is not about protecting our identities but about placing them at the disposal of the state and sundry other organisations that will have access to them. We are being asked to subscribe to an identity system that is insecure and will rarely fulfil the grand ambitions that ministers claim for it. Worse than that, it is increasingly being done on the cheap because the vast cost of the enterprise is gradually sinking it.
It is this extension of state control through the unfettered and unthinking deployment of modern surveillance technology and databases for which the Blair years (and those of his successor, unless he does something dramatic to change course) will most be remembered. Our children, and theirs, will be perplexed as to why their forebears came so easily, and with so little public debate, to allow the State to manipulate their lives.
Philip Johnston is home affairs editor and assistant editor of The Daily Telegraph
The Charles Douglas-Home Essay
This is an abridged version of this year’s winner of the annual Charles Douglas-Home Memorial Trust Award, established in 1986 in honour of the former Editor of The Times. Previous winners include V. S . Naipaul and Michael Gove. Read the full-length version of the essay at timesonline.co.uk/comment
I personally am more concerned about the ever increasing lack of choice that we as citizens are offered. Weather it be to smoke, to allow others to smoke in our place of buisiness, or to publish anything of personal opinion that doesn't catagorise as ''politically correct''. And it's getting worse. I also worry that it seems there is a lack of people in this country who are particularly bothered by this.
I can only say this. How is the nation expected to maintain liberation when it's citizens seem perfectly unaware that it is being quite plainly taken from them by a horrifyingly single minded government?
J.Bennett, S-O-T, England
The issues and politics of liberty are complex, and cannot be simplified to stereotypes of British character. British cultural identity is one of the most dynamic and varied on the planet - the issue of liberty is however fundamental to this.
Risk posed by developing terrorist threats cannot be allowed to affect this belief in the fundamental value placed on liberty and human life. To permit the government to extend these incursions into the freedom of there British public, is to inherently concede the values that rest behind this conflict. To allow the agents of terror to force the hand of our elected representatives, to act against the freedom of the electorate is to grant those very agents a cultural victory.
The liberty I hold so dear has taken an assault since the declaration of the on the war terror. This war has achieved nothing, a frank analysis of the threat that faces us now shows the war has compounded the matter. To remain resolute in defence of liberty is obligatory.
Ewan Munro, Manchester, UK
David Moss: "WE WANT, NEED, DESERVE AND PAY FOR BETTER GOVERNMENT THAN THIS "
I'm sure a lot of people have sympathy with that view. The problem is that by their very essence, governments are incompetant (in the sense of what they do, and what it costs). This is because of the fundamental incentives that drive its actions. Compare and contrast to the fundamental incentives that drive the actions of those people who prefer to conduct their life through consensual/voluntary means (rather than (the threat of) force like governments or criminals). Not perfect, but much much better.
When you realise that BIG government is always incompetant, it simplifies the picture somewhat! We need small government. Whether we campaign/vote for Labour or Tory or LibDem becomes increasingly irrelevant. We need a small government party, except this is a bit like turkey's voting for Xmas! UKIP are certainly worth keeping an eye on. We'll see...
Sam, London,
Anytime I raise tis issue in discussions with friends and colleagues I get put down with the comment "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about".
They don't seem to understand when I reply that my main worry is that in in time I will really "have nothing to hide", as the increase in monitoring by CCTV, ID card usage (as proff of ID when purchasing mobile phones, computers, whatever, road pricing, car tagging garbage weighing, etc will ensure that the State knows all that there is to know.
Jimbo, cardiff, Wales
"Yes, I'm aware of Johnston's long-standing interest in civil liberties (but only those where he an make a case agaisnt Labour). His bile was one of the reasons I stopped reading the Telegraph and I am disappointed to see it wind up here.
JLC, london,"
Have you ever thought, JLC, that the reason Johnston only makes an anti-libertarian case against Labour is because Labour is an anti-libertarian party - oh, and also because Labour is the ONLY party in government. You may not have noticed but commentators (Johnston included!) do tend to comment upon the policies of those who currently have the power to put them into practice. If you go back pre 1997 you will find the case made against Howard's ID card intentions. However, it is always much easier to make an anti-libertarian case against a party of the left than of the right. How could it be otherwise?
Steve, Truro,
All those smug critics who are reciting the mantra ` it`s all happened since 1997 ` should recall that it was the Thatcher Governmment in 1984 who restrained free movement during the Miners Strike of that year - that was when future Governments realised the British public would accept anything ...
GrahamH, Oslo, Norway
I now use IP tunnelling & encrypted servers every time I use the net (including looking at this article). The gov. have full access to all internet records & I don't want them building some lunatic "profile" of me. I think the idea of minimal contact is great - pay your taxes, keep your nose clean & be left alone
Dave, Chingford, London
Chrissy Bournemouth wanted to live abroad as an immigrant yet bemoans the influx of foreigners here, whats that about?
In my lifetime we have lost many "freedoms" what worries me is what will it take to get them back. If they are ever to be retrieved I fear the pain involved may be severe.
mike gee, bournemouth, uk
The UK stopped being a free country when the right of sefl defense was eliminated with the confiscation of individual ownership of firearms, particularily handguns, for use against home invasion and burglery. When the state superceeds the rights of law-abiding ciitizens for the rights of the criminal, it is no longer a free country. The question is, who benefits from making the criminal constituancy a protected class or as it is sometimes called, "The follow the money or the follow the greatest number of votes principle".
Jim, Roscoe, USA
Perhaps David 'Dave' Cameron could propose an Unnecessary Regulation (Repeal) Act, which would require all Government restrictions, intrusions and regulations to be reviewed after ten years, with a presumption that they will be repealed unless they are shown to be still necessary.
Frank Upton, Solihull,
It is such a sorry state of affairs when people feel powerless against their own government.
There is a case for some kind of revolution, but who would support such a thing? Plenty will talk, but hardly any would act - it is not in our nature to actually stand up for something.
Just make it easy - like perhaps a none of the above tick box at the next election - that would scare the government into behaving for a while!
However, would we see anything like the petrol protest again? I don't think so!
v, London, London
Are we a free country any more? Well, we are being made to be "free" of cost to Brussels. We are being brainwashed, denied our history,made compliant and finally labelled, sorted and packaged by identity cards and attendant database. All ready to be handed over by our control freaks to the evil dictatorship of the EU. You think this is preposterous? Well that probably proves my point.
D.L> Stephens, York, England
I have on two occasions lived and worked abroad, and mostly recently was about to emigrate to New Zealand, but this hasnt happened. I did live their for 6 months, with a 6 week intermission, and was devastated when this all fell through. England is a brow beater, a conformist Country, and I being a Northerner, and now living in the South of England, have found lots of people, dont like my honesty. I have lost lots of drippy friends, mostly women, whom I think are jealous of my strength and my honest nature. I also feel this Country trys to keep one down, being judjed by your address, the car you drive and also your profession. I feel the majority of English are honest kind caring people, but the way we are treated by this Government, and the influx of foreighners, of which we have no say in how we feel, or things we would like done, is just sheer audacity to our sense of right from wrong. There is much brain washing also, and individual thinkers are depressed.
Chrissy, Bournemouth, England
Agreed - so now what the hell do we do about it?
We can start with getting us out of the EU - let's have a referendum on that at least. Let us get back our law courts and border controls and make them subject to the majority will of the people of Britain.
The power politicians wield has been usurped by a professional political class grown out of control of the electorate. We can't touch Brussels. It is time to claim back our rights.
How do we do it? UKIP? Pressure Groups? How?
John Canning, Manchester,
I could not agree more with the above article. The dictum "those who have done nothing wrong have nothing to fear" has been constantly disproved. Having our liberty eroded in the name of freedom will surely destroy this country.
Helen, Newcastle,
Almost two years ago, a friend, who lived through the dying days of Communist Bulgaria, warned me that Britian was sleep walking in to a totalitarian state. Mr Johnson's essay echo's with eerie clarity, everything I was told about the slow and silent removal of civil liberties and civil freedom. I fear that the awareness that this article raises, and the warning that it carries, has come too late.
E. Pearson, Oxford, UK
I agree totally with Mr Johnston, but I can't think of or find a way to counteract this totalitarian development. Elections only every 4,5 or 6 years, and manifestos based on generalities mean the electorate really has no say in government.
Suggestions please to help us out!
William Cowburn, Lytham St Annes, Lancashire, UK
Is there any country in this world where a man can truely live free?
Brendan van Rooyen, London, England
To Jem in London -would you really be happy to live in such a totalitarian state? If so I can only guess you must be quite young (we've all been there) or else completely unaware of (and unconcerned about) what it means to be British.
Adam Neilson, Birmingham,
Completely agree with Mr Johnston. The Government's eargerness to remove liberties from its citizens is why the public should be demanding a clear concise wholly written constitutional document and why the Government will always refuse such accountability.
P Johnson, Hampshire, UK
The sad truth is that most of the British people are a sheep-like bunch at heart who do not want to see the perils they face from the State, the actions of which are always presumed to be intrinsically benign. The danger of the State's increasing intrusion is often airily dismissed by that sentence which is so dangerous and self-deluding in its smugness, "I don't have anything to hide."
The English have always believed in the myth of the robustness of their defence of their liberty. The Normans disproved it when they decapitated the English leadership and conquered and subdued a nation of over 2 million with a mere 25,000 men.
Gervas Douglas, Andorra la Vella,
In 35 years the single event that terrified the UK government more than any other was not terrorist attack but the petrol tax protest. That took Home Office completely by surprise. The protesters had no central organisation so spooks or special branch people hadn't been planted in its organisation to subvert it using dirty tricks. Protesters used word of mouth, mobile and terrestrial phones and the internet so these means of communication are now subject to intensive scrutiny. The national network of cameras is being expanded so that if there ever is a protest, buses and coaches can be stopped on our roads network before reaching Westminster's 1 KM exclusion zone. Islamic terrorism was manna from Heaven to the Home Office, which had ignored the lack of integration and radical preaching in Muslim communities. Now it had a 'virtuous' excuse to practice repression techniques.
Our odious lobby fodder MPs know this perfectly well. Luckily for them, the English are sheep.
ian, bath,
To all those who confidently predict that ID Cards will banish identity fraud, cut crime and eliminate illegal immigration, perhaps you should look first at the 21 countries in the EU that have ID Cards, either compulsory or voluntary. Spain has had very strict identity control for decades - it's illegal to go outside your home without an ID Card - yet there are 2 million illegal workers in Spain. Most identity fraud is related to unattended credit card transactions, which no identity card will ever reduce. What WOULD reduce it would be an enhancement of the method why which CC details are taken over the internet by allowing a PIN to be entered. The VAST majority of the 1.1 billion annual bill for social security fraud is caused by people misrepresenting their income or savings, which an ID Card is complete unable to prevent. Germany, Italy, Spain, Russia have all suffered terribly from terrorism yet having very strict identity control.
ID Cards are simply a waste of money.
Stephen Thomas, Tonbridge,
Whilst I agree with most points made in the article, I think you will find that the reason for the complaint against Lynette Burrows was because she claimed that gay men were unfit to adopt children was because they would probably rape them.
This assertion is not supported by any research I know of into sexual abuse in a family situation, and thus comes fairly close to hate speech.
If you are looking for a nanny state example on adoption, perhaps the recent calls for smokers not to be allowed to adopt children would serve as a better example.
Daniel Lindholm, London, England
We need to replace 'liberal' dictatorship with democratism, the rule of the democratic majority. Democratism MUST NOW replace liberalism as the default political principle. WE THE PEOPLE (the democratic majority) have the solution in our own hands. DIRECT ACTION THIS DAY AND EVERY DAY!!!
Terry Daly, London, Great Britain
Well said Betty
I too get the same feeling. From being a nation that stood up for principles and civil rights, we have now become insular and afraid to speak up. The government has the duty to ensure security of its citizens, but not at the price of civil liberties and freedom of speech.
Hamad lone, ex-pat brit, Middle East
I agree with lost hope from Sydney.
"you have only yourselves to blame"
Whenever I return to my native UK for a vacation I so want to SHAKE people to wake them up. British people have been drained of the notion that they have any power. Just do what you're told, and we'll hand out welfare cheques.
The nation needs another Churchill to put the spine back in place against an over bearing Socialist, authoritarian govt.
Betty Fowler, New York, NY, USA.
Our liberties are being eroded because the guardians of those very liberties have failed in their duty. Who are the guardians? It’s not the press and it’s our MPs it’s you and me.
And if you say nothing to hide nothing to fear ask yourself this, if you’ve got nothing to hide why are you being treated by this government as if you have.
Our last chance to stop our lives from being managed by this government, with the introduction of ID cards, is the ballot box.
And this is from someone who’s always voted Labour.
Andrew Evans, llanelli, UK
As far as the smoking ban is concerned, one should not forget the civil liberties of the staff who work in places where smoking was once commonplace (such as the pub) in their right to have a safe, clean work environment and that sometimes the restriction of some liberties are neccesary for the freedom of all.
David Fleming, Cork, Ireland
aside from practical concerns regarding mistakes and mismatches, I can't see any reason why not to have id cards and a dna database for everyone in this country (whether here temporarily or permanently). it would instantly (in theory) end fraudulent benefit claims (yes, I know) and point the finger at pretty much any criminal as there will always be dna evidence. same with cctv and speed cameras (although, as someone who habitually speeds, I would like to see realistic speed limits set if cameras are to proliferate - but I'd be happy for the limit to be 15mph near schools) - the only requirement would be rules to prevent the misuse of information.
if our approach is to be that criminals will find away round all of this and only the innocent will suffer, that could be applied to any law you care to mention. why not get rid of them all? is it, perhaps, because rules give us freedom? the freedom not to be raped or bombed or our taxes wasted.... oh, maybe not that last one.
jem, london, uk
"Are we a free country any more?"
We are free to leave this country, if we don't like it?
So yes, we are free.
Most of the other freedoms are restricted for our own good. Thats what our government tells us anyway.
Mohammed, London, UK
All this is true. However, it is also possible to identify a fundamental process which inexorably urges the diminution of personal liberties, regardless of which government enacts the regulations. That is population growth. A serious phase of population growth started in the 1950’s; I well remember the Duke of Edinburgh as a passionate Cassandra at the time. I would bet my bottom dollar that a simple graph plotting population growth against anti-libertarian legislation would show remarkable concurrence.
Nick Wibberley, Neuvic-Entier, France
What is all this worry about not being allowed to say this or say the other? Just go out and do what you want, no one is going to stop you. The police are too busy doing paper work to notice. Break free of your imaginary shackles and go change the world for the better.
Marco, Glasgow,
I am currently working for a private company commissioned by a certain Government Department to implement an IT products/services e-procurement system (i.e. to allow them to buy their IT stuff is a somewhat predictable way, as they currently have no idea who buys what and how much they spend).
One of our requirements is that they give us the staff number of the person who is trying order the product (from which we will use the Department's own HR database to determine their details - name, office location, etc etc).
They have told us in no uncertain terms that the HR database cannot be relied upon to contain the correct details, so we will likely end up delivering the service to the wrong place/person.
If the Government's own staff HR databases cannot relied upon, how can we have any confidence that a massive, countrywide database of every citizens most personal details will be in any way reliable. And if it's not reliable, then what is the point in having it?
I despair.
Winston Smith, London, UK
The good things and the bad things that flowed from TB's premiership came from the same instinct: the urge to improve the world through action. This flowed from TB's background (upper-middle class), job (lawyer) and faith (the muscular variant of Christianity), and chimed well with the instincts of Middle Britain (who, for all their manifest advantages, actually *like* meddling in the lives of other people). Hence endless laws sincerely meant to improve matters, and we lost double jeopardy and habeus corpus protections as a result. Neither Brown and Cameron show signs of rejecting this, and politicians by definition *like* passing laws. It would be nice to see a Government that *reduced* the rulebook, *repealed* laws, or otherwise let people sort things out for themselves. It would be nicer still if we had some method of limiting the power wielded by one person over another, whether by Govt, interest group, or whatever. But I'm not holding my breath...
Timothy Martyn, Southampton, Britain
John Wood of London asked "Can anybody remind me what George Orwell's REAL name was?"
Er, hold on, it's on the tip of my tongue, it was Eric Blai...ah, gottit, John. Nice one. Said it all in one sentence.
Timothy Martyn, Southampton, Britain
Years ago we actually knew our enemies.
And anyone who wanted to come to this Country would have to stand on their own two feet.And more important have to obey the rules of the Country.But through incompetent Governments. And especially the present one.We have through their actions allow the enemies to be within. With have different rules applying to different sectors of society. With the amount of Camera's in public now,we have become a police state.
How long before we have a camera in every room of the house.
I remember in 1997 Tony Blair saying ''Things can only get better''.Well Tony looking now at the big picture, you and your
Government are full of it.
Alan Walton, Leicester, England
We have neither freedom of speech nor freedom of conscience in this country.
The control over our speech is set out in the article. The control over our conscience is found when we consider the BNP. Whatever your thoughts might be about that party it does stand at elections, it has councillors and it does reflect some people's views. Yet police officers were dismissed for being members of it. In Aberdeen it was refused the right to parade.
I vote Tory but am unhappy that what is a political party is being curtailed in this way. It could be that other politically unpleasant movements will be blocked too. Pehaps the next party to be blocked by the thought police will be the party you support. Why not, after all the precedent has been set.
We have lost our freedoms. The Commons has failed us. Arbitrary government once again.
David Morrison, Airdrie, UK
After reading your article i am in disbelief, ok lets look at something from another perspective.
if everyones id/bimetric data was stored on a national database would this then not be able to be used in the combat of identity fraud? of course, imagine if everyone was accountable for their actions, this would dramatically reduce crime(and if it didnt reduce the crime,it would surely help in identifying the crimnal and swiftly bringing them to justice, this in effect changing the mindset of people and maybe even preventing the crime in the first place. im pretty sure that if you had everyones identity and they knew about it then would the security and integrity of our once great country be more secure? Absolutley. We all agree that there is an imminent terrorist threat in this country and a serious security issue with stupid legalities that are preventing our nation from evolving and standing strong as a nation to help prevent and deter any outside threats. Be smart. ACT NOW
M Stancer, LONDON, UK
It takes two to tango. Very few people give a monkey’s about real freedom or would support anyone who fights for freedom. It is they who have allowed freedom to diminish in importance. In fact freedom has become a bit of a dirty word on the left and the essence of our ethics is now concentrated on not offending certain people. The police are notable for their inconsistency in the application of the law. Last year a bloke in Ipswich simply wore a balaclava in public and was promptly arrested by the police. Last week a load of blokes wore balaclavas in public and held up notices saying “British police go to hell†while standing in close proximity to police. On this occasion the police made no arrests. These blokes were adherents of a certain religion which I shall not name, just in case. I wouldn’t want to be accused of ******phobia, would I.
Trofim, Birmingham, UK
I know people who are on their knees begging for a speed camera on a stretch of the A27 because people keep getting killed there by speeding lunatics. My wife and many, many friends (including one particulalry asthmatic friend) can now go out of an evening for a few drinks down the pub, something they haven't done for years because they hated the smokey atmosphere. The much-maligned DNA database has, among other successes, already caught one serial rapist of 12 women something like 15 years afterwards who would never, ever have been caught without it. That one conviction alone sold it to me. And freedom of speech is actually very easy, the secret is not to be filled with hate for people for no reason. Sort that and you can write what you want. The haters are now actually legally accountable for their bile. "Behead opponents of Islam" is unacceptable and now, rightly, illegal. I hate ID cards and there's a lot wrong, but don't lump in successes with failures, it makes you look stupid
chris, Worthing, England
Ever since I saw police security ring round a petrol station near me during the petrol hauliers strike I have known & percieved that this once great country is now a police state and freedom is only a distant memory. Anyone remember the Countryside Alliance protesters getting a pasting from PC's with metal batons outside Westminster? I do!
This once great country that my grandfather fought in the 2 world wars for doesn't exist anymore. I am no longer allowed to say what I think in public about certain issues as the thought police would say I would affend some minority group or other.
The sooner the average citizen realises the bare truths the better. I for one would leave this country at the drop of a hat if I could. I'm planning to do so in the future, I can't wait.
Neal, Reading, England
Can anybody remind me what George Orwell's REAL name was?
John Wood, London,
How can you call the government's fear of terrorism "irrational" anybody would agree that after 7/7 fear of terrorist attack is both rational and justified. I personally don't feel like there are things I can't do now that I could do 10 years ago, except maybe have my lungs polluted against my will in through passive smoking.
James, Plymouth, UK
In the US we have a written Constitution to guarentee our rights.
But, a constiution does nothing if the authorities and the courts choose to ignore it as is the case here.
Jim Walton, Washington, DC
As with most discussions of this kind, few of those waxing indignant about excessive surveillance etc. give us examples of how they've been affected personally. Who are these "big brothers" who apparently have so much time on their hands that they want to waste it trying to dig up dirt on ordinary people? Freedom? It depends whom you're talking about. Demonstrations in city centres such as London are far from infrequent, but does anyone ever consider the ordinary people inconvenienced on these occasions, such as visitors, small businesses, and people waiting fruitlessly for buses which have been delayed or diverted?
Barry, Wallington, UK
There are so many restrictions in Britain now and to make life easier you just need the one notice at ports of entry to Britain these days. All it needs to say is
'It Is Forbidden.'
This can be amended later to add 'except ID cards.'
Mic (expat), Portugal,
In response to Julian from Winchcombe,
Yes, I'm aware of Johnston's long-standing interest in civil liberties (but only those where he an make a case agaisnt Labour). His bile was one of the reasons I stopped reading the Telegraph and I am disappointed to see it wind up here.
JLC, london,
What is extraordinary here is the disconnect between, on the one hand, our practical attitudes to home and personal security and, on the other, our limited resistance to the threat posed to us by unscrupulous members of the government.
Everyone has locks on their doors and, I presume, most of us always use them. We also have burglar and car alarms, PIN numbers, computer passwords, secure transactions, anti-virus software, document shredders, curtains, self-defence classes and, in these matters, common sense. Yet, when I discussed with a colleague the threat posed to us by someone exercising the current powers of our government - someone just as capable of choosing evil as a man with a mask, a striped jersey and a bag conveniently marked with the letters S-W-A-G - my interlocutor scoffed: "You just have to trust people!".
Kevin, London,
Big mistake from those who bash johnston on grounds of bashing Labour. The point is missed, the whole issue is of liberty & its future in the UK.
the ID system will not be the end of it, it will simply bring on more & more complicated never ending issues related to security. Middle eastern countries have had the ID system since God knows when & hasn't stopped others from ill using it to their advantage, in a way if the ID is about security, then its the pandora box that will start to reshape the british society with its freedom & liberties into a totalitarian controlled one. undoubtedly many will welcome it, specially those who want to bring down western civility & see it lose its most attractive appeal.
abdel kader, Cairo, Egypt
I have no political convictions, never seen anyone worthy of my vote.
But to read there are still people out there who defend Tony Blair and the labour party
Fills me with more despair than this article.
Maybe the British public deserve all this.
I don’t even know what it means to be british any more.
The second most popular name for a new born boy is now Mohamed and they predict that in two years time it Will be the most popular.
Watch out for a mosque coming to an area near you.
Its time to leave.
Mike, Berlin,
What a brilliant article. Blair has much to answer for and this to my mind is the most serious (others get distracted by Iraq). The Labour Party should be ashamed of itself for the way it has behaved over the assault on civil liberties. Amongst others, Peter Hain should especially hang his head with his flirtation with authoritarian laws which were promulagated in South Africa. 'The War on Terror' is a con trick to take away the liberty of the individual. Philip Johnston is correct - where are the opposition in all of this? If Brown gets rid of these laws then he will deserve respect.
Ian Burgess, Bristol,
Congratulations on an excellent article.
All we need now is a politician to do something about it.
I predict that we will eventually reach the point of revolution in this country when 'the masses' revolt against this and the secret taxation that goes with it. At the time, the government will brand the rebellion with labels of 'terrorists' and twist the arguments because the revolutionaries 'are fighting against the values of ordinary good citizens'
We need honesty in governemt, zero spin, pragmatism, intelligence, pride, selflessness and passion for the right of the people (not money, which rules everything nowadays).
When there is a politician who stands for this and genuinely works selflessly to return us to freedom (and yes I will accept the sometimes idiosyncratic unfairness that this encompasses): I will vote for them.
paul, milton keynes,
My grandfather was awarded the Military Medal in the first world war,my own father was a land mine victim in the second world war ,both died very young.Why ?What For? They believed it was for the liberties of the individual.I try and practise my freedom of expression whenever possible ensuring the continuation of the democratic process.It is the right of every individual in the UK .Apathy ,not governments is the cause of loss of liberty and communitys must shoulder some of the blame.We still live in the best country in the world.
Two things you have no control over. Your birth parents and your birthplace the rest is up to the individual in this land of opportunity.
Mary E Hoult, Leeds , Yorkshire
I completely agree. I wish the Tories would adopt a strong pro-liberty stance instead of trying to emulate Blairism. The latter tactic clearly isn't working anyway and this country desperately needs a party that will stand up against creeping totalitarianism. Leave it for another 10 years and it will be too late - the erosion of our freedoms will be well-nigh irreversible and the system will be so rigged in Labour's favour that no meaningful political opposition will be possible. When will Cameron wake up and start doing what needs to be done?
Mark Jamieson, Bristol,
A free country? A free world? The next years will decide if himanity is mature enough to stop a global fascist state with mind-boggling surveillance at their disposal. If not, those that come after us will have to endure a world of never seen before suppression of intellect, creativity, freedom of speech, of movement and of thought. The new world order is upon us.
Oliver Mueller, Crawley, UK
The 'Great' in Britain has gone the same way as it's backbone. The Government is more concerned with the 'wider world' than it's own people. Our pride, national identity and 'Britishness' is being erroded away by law after law. The villians, criminals, illegal immigrants and terrorists, etc now have more rights than the decent law abiding folk.
Proud to be British? ...I'm struggling!
Colin Baxter, Leicester,
you have said it all sir,the paragraph that included the part "it is hard to concieve of a police officer of a generation ago taking any notice of her since she was causing no public order problem at all " should be of interest to all who saw that recent photo or muslim women waving plackards in a protest next to a police woman with folded arms, what were her instructions that day !
paul corrigan, bg st mce, france
I am appalled at the way we are tacitly sleepwalking into an Orwellian State. New Labour are no better than the GDR's Stasi and God help us if the Stalinistic -unelected - Brown stays in power.
Dean Cavanagh, Manchester, UK
Remember, those who sacrifice freedom to obtain security will end up having neither. At the same time, however, we now face a problem in Western societies that is perhaps quite new. During the Cold War the West allowed ardent Communists to speak openly about their desire to replace existing governments and societies with their own, and we allowed them to work to achieve their goals. Today, however, a similar force (militant Islam) wants to achieve a similar goal, but unlike the Communists of the Cold War they are willing to engage in suicide to terrorize others into accepting their goals. MAD (mutually assured destruction) during the Cold War was a deterrent, but now for militant Muslims it is a golden opportunity. Meanwhile, "moderate" Muslims continue their silence.
James, Jacksonville,
From what I have seen of most countries including ours, real freedom is just a concept. You are not supposed to be impolite enough to try it.
Watch easy rider. Or consider the real concept behind the Matrix. The fact that there is the alternative concept of livng 'off the grid' which is disaproved of puts it in perspective.
Look what happened to the new age gypsies they were tormented as scourge because they were a growing movement which threatened the established norm.
'Real Freedom' do we really know what that means?
Audi Driver, Kelso, Borders
The strongest argument against ID cards is that they will be unenforceable. It is the strongest argument because it is statistically irrefutable. Assume that all adults, or 80% of the population will be required to submit to them. Assume further that the vast majority eventually acquiesce, and that only 1% of us say "To Hell with you and your ID cards. I'll manage without a passport. Send me to prison if you want." (And I think that it will be much more than 1%, considering that both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, among many other organisations, have declared themselves against ID cards.) Even with 1% refuseniks, that is 480,000 people, or five times the current population of our prisons that are stuffed to capacity anyway. What are they going to do - build camps to put us all in?
This seems to me an argument that even strong supporters of ID cards simply have not addressed. It will be a far worse millstone around their necks than the Poll Tax if they do not change course.
Dr. Keith Anderson, Durham, England
billy: "...Would he be quite as condemnatory about the even more draconian measures taken by the US government against its citizens?"
I do not remember ID cards being compulsory in the USA, neither do I remember the USA shifting around the burden-of-proof in criminal cases.
Preemption: before you even mention Guantanamo Bay, do not forget that those are not US citizens, and hence no part of your comment.
Frederick Davies, Oxford, UK
"Lost Hope" from Sydney is correct. The "freedom" has been given to criminals to do as they wish and then be let out because the incompetent Government has insufficient space in jail to retain them all.
"Freedom" for the law abiding, tax paying masses has become an absolute joke since Blair appeared on the scene and for Blair read also Brown who is equally culpable.
C J Wales, Shawbury, England
This column highlights one of the real advantages of a written constitution and bill of rights such as we have in America. Sure, it may protect the right of a right-wing nut to own a gun, but it also has preserved from attack, for example, the jury (both the grand jury and the trial jury), the protection against double jeopardy, the presumption of innocence, etc. Guantanamo Bay is an aberation in the context of our bill of rights, and the Bush administration has suffered mostly defeats both in the regular courts and even in the military commissions as it attempts to stave off the inevitable conclusion that the prison there is unconstitutional.
Ted, Boston, Massachusetts
NO ! Political correctness has killed FREE SPEECH
Bernard Parke, Guildford,
England a Parliamentary Democracy and Constitutional Monarchy---the rule of the majority. This is what you get with no written or legally enforceable constitution.
There is now a socialist system in place that takes care of you from the sperm to the worm, and all for your own good.
They've even taken away your right to use deadly force to defend yourselves in your homes. Oh, I forgot the English don't attack each other in their homes and any way there's a Bobby outside every home in Britain.
What makes you think you're entitled to anything other than what the majority says you can have today let alone tomorrow?
The Terror of the Majority!
Suck it up!
David B. Monier-Williams, Scottsdale, US
Sadly Mr Cameron's Conservatives regard these issues as the last gasps of old out-dated Tories! Join the new Conservative State - be modern - throw out your principles - you too can participate with us in controlling your fellow men.
No wonder the Tories are making little progress in the polls. I know one former district young conservative opting to vote Liberal.
V Hurst, Almancil, Portugal
The broadcast media may or may not be complicit. The British people most certainly are - and the rot set in a very long time before Blair ever appeared. We have created a completely dependent culture where the almost universal expectation is that the government "must and will do something", and "there ought to be a law". Inevitably the State takes it upon itself to act - that's what states do when faced with no opposition. Politicians think they know better than the rest of us - the rest of us don't seem to care. We have got to start fighting back against these petty, marginal but ever-encroaching erosions of our hard won freedoms.
Tim, Kingston,
This is very well said.
Indeed does not most of the legislation labelled 'human rights' seem merely to take the rights of ordinary people away?
The only people to whom it gives rights are foreigners and minorities, and these 'rights' are to be exercised at my expense against me. What private citizen can afford to go to law? What law can someone not a member of a favoured minority invoke? -- Hence the scramble for privileged status and for laws to silence 'my_special_group_ophobes'.
In a free country we have no cameras, no few officials, and only a police force accountable to the community.
Roger Pearse, Ipswich,
Since George Orwell made his nightmarish prophetic vision in 1949 The UK population has grown by 17 per cent which should be noted in terms of popula-tion density. In addition to this population explosion we have had a communica-tion explosion. The world since Orwell’s day has shrunk.
We have had the up down [deference society] we have had the left right [wrong right society] now we have the in out [open closed society]. There are now many ways of putting forward an argument in a civilised manner without cluttering the streets. For example this message board was not available three years ago.
It is not all doom and gloom. I count myself lucky that I can leave my house unlocked whereas I belief my town cousins lock their front door when they go to their back door and lock their back door when they go to their front door.
Whatever, we still need to exercise sense and sensibility.
Roger Foord-Evans, Ashburton, DEVON
Those commentators from other countries should perhaps be a little less smug.
If the ID Card scheme 'works' - ie it can be physically implemented - how long do you think it will be before you are treated to the same?
But hopefully the whole thing will collapse under the sheer scale and technical impossibility of the task involved. It certainly won't be stopped by the utter apathy of the British people.
Mark, Manchester,
These data hoarders at the Home Office are really frightening. They do not like democracy, to say the least, and try to avoid any real and open debate.
Surely, our data belongs to us and the state is only a custodian, At the very least, we should be entitled to have control over who can access it and know who actually has had access to it and to what extent. If it is so valuable, we should be paid when someone or some organisation accesses it, not the state.
More to the point, there are no benefits whatsoever for us in such a database about us. The whole thing should be scrapped and their promoters sacked.
All that without talking about privacy and civil liberties, which is kind of essential, isn’t it?
Power is always abused. We should certainly not forget that.
John, London, UK
From birth, we are registered and a certificate is issued verifying us as a unit of production owned by the state herein enters a 'cost of living' tally and obligations of our parents to submit us to toxic vaccines which deplete our vulnerable immune systems; some of us die from ''cot death' as a result, others develop strange and crippling deformities and syndromes.This process of poisoning is repeated periodically throughout childhood in the name of 'health care'.We are obliged to attend state indoctrination from age 5-16 to be fed lies about history and to learn how to conform even when bored sick and the consequences of rebellion.Our individuallity is negated on every level in order to 'fit in' to the group, obey 'authority' and regurgitate useless information accurately to pass 'tests' or 'fail'. We learn little of value for our years of compulsory investment other than to fit into a 'job' in order to pay taxes and 'earn' a living by making some shareholders dividends rise.
DaftAida, London,
This plethora of legislation was originally driven by the need for the Labour Party to be seen as tough on crime as well as it causes.Ten years on it is crime and especially terrorism that has become the focus of government time and resources whist measures aimed at helping offenders break the cycle of recidivism have not been at the forefont of efforts to control still less reduce criminality.
Despite his legal background Tony Blair rarely showed any interest in or indeed concern for the historic civil liberties of his compatriots.His barrister wife may have been a strong proponent of the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into English law but once terrorism became a major world issue after 9/11 our former PM became increasingly strident in his attacks on some of its provisions.
Soon crime and terrorism seemed to become one and the same in his mind, the outcome being yet further repressive laws on the statute book.
BILL JACKSON, NOTTINGHAM, UK
I'm not fully up to speed with the individuals rights in this country, but a similar debate is raging in Australia at the moment because of the detention of an Indian doctor for 12 days over 'terror' charges. Again the presumption of innocence was completely ignored and when no charges were to be laid, the final result was that another department of the state is now to deport him for very different reasons.
I had a friend who studied a major in anthropology and sociology and he reckoned that society inherently moves from the left to the right, not usually to Orwells extremes through. This makes sense to me because as we create more rules, we are in fact becoming less of a democracy. The end result he explained would be a revolution where people regain rights and freedom, and then the process starts again.
James, Hove,
Reports of pension raids abound and this appears to be perfectly legal and encouraged through an economic system which has never made sense. The equity on your home is falling; you've married a stranger who you no longer like, let alone love and life is an empty charade as the politics you thought you understood are criminal, the government are criminal and the police are everywhere except at the scene of the crime. Wars dominate the news and you feel helpless to change any of it. The career that has taken up your life has not produced the anticipated earnings or satisfaction..Now, is that freedom? Freedom is terrifying as it is unknown we don't know how powerful and creative we are.This co-dependancy on state is the result of socialism. It takes courage to demand freedom and we are called to do so now in breaking free from the grip of this pathocracy before it consumes us totally. If we don't change direction we're likely to end up where we're going and it ain't up that's for sure.
DaftAida, London,
Has there ever been an article so rich in generality of accusation and so lacking in specifics?
Actually, yes there has.
You can read at least one every week in the Labour-bashing Daily Telegraph.
arnoldo, Coventry,
I am currently living in China and, believe me, I and my Chinese friends have far more personal freedom to go about our business than I had in Britain before I left 18 months ago. And Britain is a Democracy, China a Communist state?
We need to adjust the popular connotations of these two overused terms. The communism that Chinas enjoys is very different from the appalling socialist and monolithic State control that destroyed Eastern Europe and Russia. Similarly, the Democracy that Britain now suffers is very different from the liberation and empowerment of the individual that made Britain great in the Gladstone and Thatcher/Major years.
Blair and his cabinet have consistently demonstrated a contempt for parliament and individual freedoms unseen in Britain since the days of the Plantagenets. It will take someone greater than the fully signed up Gordon Brown to reverse the Blair legacy.
In the meantime, Britain suffers.
Bill McCann, Suzhou, China
I have to disagree with Mr Pu Li - even at a distance the UK does not look good.
Family breakdown, uncontrolled youth violence, indisciplined schools, excessive local taxation, a government that answers to the City of London, not the working people of Britain, plus bad weather and high prices of drinks in pubs, to strike a lighter note, all adds up to a dismal picture.
I left in 2002. I hope I never have to go back to live there.
cerronevado, Malaga, Spain
What is extraordinary here is the disconnect between, on the one hand, our practical attitudes to home and personal security and, on the other, our limited resistance to the threat posed to us by unscrupulous members of the government (among whom we know there to be not a few law-breakers).
Everyone has locks on their doors and, I presume, most of us always use them. We also have burglar and car alarms, PIN numbers, computer passwords, secure transactions, anti-virus software, document shredders, curtains, self-defence classes and, in these matters, common sense. Yet, when I discussed with a colleague the threat posed to us by someone exercising the current powers of our government - someone just as capable of choosing evil as a man with a mask, a striped jersey and a bag conveniently marked with the letters S-W-A-G - my interlocutor scoffed: "You just have to trust people!".
Kevin, London,
WE WANT, NEED, DESERVE AND PAY FOR BETTER GOVERNMENT THAN THIS
Mr Johnston's essay is a major contribution to political debate.
With the power of The Times and The telegraph behind him, perhaps he can force a debate on two issues.
1. Whereas most political commentators express admiration for the Labour Party's move to the centre under Messrs Blair and Brown, if you look at the evidence, as Mr Johnston has, the Labour government appears to be firmly in a foreign tradition of totalitarianism. Issue no.1 -- is this a government of the centre?
2. The National Identity Scheme is intended to help to detect crime, prevent crime, counter terrorism and make public services more efficient. To achieve these objectives, it relies on biometrics. The biometrics chosen are not reliable enough (see comments on http://tinyurl.com/2ku8xu). The government know this and yet they proceed with the National I dentity Scheme anyway. Issue no.2, is this government rational?
David Moss, London, UK
The Introduction of ID cards is the new holy grail for the NuLabour government, and as Blair ignored the opposition to traffic charges as shown by 1.9 million people who signed the pettition. The government will continue to ignore any opposition to the ID scheme from its citizens, and walking roughshod over any civil liberties as to them they are not an issue. We are as a country being led like sheep to slaughter, and the Judas goat whom we are following blindly, without question is our own manipulative government.
Les, Southport, England
And guns? It's true, isn't it, that gun crimes have INCREASED since they were illegalized?
I'd as soon visit Iran as Britain, if I expected to exercise free speech.
Lee Pefley, Brent, usa/alabama
If I was a criminal I would just get around 3 or 4 different ID cards and then swan around purporting to be someone I am not. In the age of, "computer says no" it takes that average person a day in court to clear an inaccurate gas bill. What make people think that this is any different. The only difference is that someone will be locked up indefinitely whilst I go about my merry way. The lack of an national ID system does not prevent the police identifying and dealing with criminals only their budget and lack of intelligence prevents this. History is a great teacher and if it teachs you anything it is that if a law exists and can be used out of context then it will, either by the state or disgruntled fellow man.
John, Egremont, Cumbria
If you earn enough to be able to leave home, you are free to spend whatever income left over from taxes, rent, bills and fares on whatever car you can afford.You must pay additional tax and insurance for this plus exhoribitent fees for parking the thing and fines if you don't park it in the right place at the right time at the right price.You must wear a seat belt or be fined, even though seatbelts have proven to be lethal. The government has the right to revoke your license or charge you extra fines and imprison you if you refuse to pay such fines.You are free to travel anywhere in the World but you must pay for an international ID permit; a passport. At work, if employed, you must obey the company rules which demand that you turn up at a certain time, have lunch at a certain time and leave at a certain time for a certain amount of days per week.You are generallly obliged to work longer hours than those for which you are paid.You are also required to meet arbitary 'targets' on 'time'.
DaftAida, London,
sir,
i was extremley saddened to read that after 14 months of investigation, funded by the taxpayers, no prosecution would be brought againest anyone in "cash for honuors" scandal. anyone with a briefed up information on the matter would have realised that there was something fishy about the case. furthermore, the reports, comments and the interviews with those aware of the scandal that was passed on to the public through the media have convinced the public that the last Labour election was funded by secret loans. the expression that the "law is above everyone" has been proved wrong in the last 6 months, 1st , it was the government's decision to drop the BAE's investigation on grounds of national security( not business), 2nd the cash for honurs. i believe that the CPS should stop meddling too much with politicians in order for them to maintain the public's trust. george orwell was right when he said that " all animals are equal but some are more" its proved now politicians r more.
a.h.amiri, kent, england
Should your offspring desire to 'get a better job' they or you face an automatic minimum of a £30,000 debt for the priviledge of 3 years of extended indoctrination at university to be repaid when they start work. Ah, but you will retire one day and reap the benefit of a pension! Then you'll have the freedom to enjoy life, won't you? As the debts increase and the workload intensifies, you find the goalposts are continually shifting and what appeared to be solid ground is increasingly wobbly.If you have not set up your own business by now and managed a steady growth in income, takeovers, downsizing and mysterious 'market forces' take their toll on your mental and physical health.You wonder where it's all heading and worse, where 50 years of your life have gone and on what.Your parents health isn't too good and your child is a virtual stranger. You watch in dread as the world becomes increasingly hostile and meanignless. You continue to put on a brave face but your soul is weary.
DaftAida, London,
That's right - we are such a police state that we can't deport people who have entered this country illegally with a history of terrorist activity because it would be in breach of their human rights. Indeed we can't even detain people who enter this country illegally period. If a policeman gives a teenage thug a slap over the head he is suspended - nursery teachers who stop children fighting are charged with assault.
I can imagine you sitting down for coffee with a woman in Buenos Aires whose husband was 'arrested' over dinner and whose corpse appeared on a Uruguayan dump bruised and broken six months later - and you can chat with North Koreans held in concentration camps where bodies are left to rot. And you can say how you shared their repression because once woman was denied the 'right' to use a place of mourning to make a political statement and a thirty second soundbite for the evening news.
These sort of ridiculous claims trivialise real political repression and suffering.
H, London,
This is why i lie to the government at every turn and trust them with none of my correct personal information. This government is simply a thieving, twisted, churlish collection of spineless fools. The sooner I can leave this poxy authoritarian little country the better.
mike, leicester, uk
I fear that the situation may well be irrecoverable. True, Britain is by no means totalitarian in the same sense as Stalin's Russia or Hitler's Germany, but by modern Western democratic standards it certainly is totalitarian in all but name. The reasons are many and include the naivety and political apathy of the British, the lack of a proper opposition, as well as the lack of a formal constitution and charter of rights and
freedoms as, for example exists in Canada. Having lived outside the UK for 30 years or more, I have a better perspective of the steady encroachement of rights and freedoms, and indeed it now seems to be the case that everything is forbidden except that which is strictly permitted, and even those permissions are being steadily withdrawn. I fear greatly for the rights and freedoms of my children.
Adrian Ryan, Donegal, Ireland
The biometric ID card will bring a bonanza for criminals. Not many private organisations or individuals will have the ability to check that the biometrics on the card are even really there, let alone match the bearer of the card. It will be a relatively simple matter to make a fake ID for deceiving the general public. Nor will they learn from past mistakes, chips holding the data will only be guaranteed for about two years. Some will last six months, some four years, others will be dead on arrival.
But I think even the destruction of civil liberties will appear a minor reason to remember the Blair / Brown government by when the power is only on a few hours a day. This lot will be remembered, from about 2015 onwards, for wimping out and not building a new generation of nuclear power stations when they had the majority to push it through easily. They thought the really serious issues were hunting and ID cards.
Peter Dunford, Bournemouth,
One thing I find strange is that our leaders (and those in the US) keep finding it necessary to keep telling us how free we are. It is almost as if they think that if they keep telling us often enough we will believe it.
No one has explained from what I've heard or read how ID cards will be of any use whatsoever in combating crime or terrorism.
Steve Byrne, Christchurch, UK
This article is a true picture of what has been imposed on our society, it is no accident. The only criticism I have is that it should have made the front page.
Has anyone else noticed how much input Siemens has on our technology, and how much influence the German Government has in the UK due to it's ownership of Deutche Bahn, it's part ownership of Deutche Telecom and Deutche Post,and therefore all the sister companies which come off them?
Then there is Bertelsmann's influence under different media and admin. guises such as Arvato and channel 5 and it's forums for future EU defence such as 2004 Venusberg report. Is Britain in the picture at all in this surveillance society, or just the surveyed?
KTC, Devon, UK
Whereas your concerns over the erosion of free speech and individual liberty certainly have substance, you have, in your desire to blame Blair and Labour, misidentified the causes and chosen the wrong target. There are many factors that are having a negative impact on our freedoms, not just in Little England but all over the "Free World". The first is Islamist Terrorism, neither created nor desired by Labour. Your assertion
"September 11 and the threat from international terrorism was the problem it had most been looking for. '
Is just rubbish Any fool can see that some restrictions are necessary to reduce that threat. Second is the debilitating creed of political correctness that has infected our media, educational, judicial and political institutions, the very pillars of Democracy. PC is enforced not so much by laws as by informal sanctions such as social, career or romantic dispreferment. Its roots are generational, back at least to the 60's, Last but not least the EU.
Sean Birnie, Madrid,
No doubt JLC and Billy in London are unaware that Philip Johnston has been writing pieces in civil liberties for quite some time. This has been a common theme of his journalism for some time.
Instead of just weighing in with unfounded cynisim perhaps you could do a bit of reading. You wouldn't look so silly that way.
Julian, Wincombe,
You borrow thousands if not hundreds of thousands of pounds at high interest rates in order to 'buy' a shelter which you will probably never own and are one repayment away from dispossession and homelessness. Keeping your 'job' and 'getting ahead' then become an absolutely necessity. The miracle of life repeats as you have a child, register its birth, thus enslaving it to the state, dutifully have it poisoned with vaccinations, farm it out to strangers in nursery school and 15 years of indoctrination. Your role in that time is one of cook,chauffuer. You dutifully fulfill your role as to teaching the child the art of consumerism as you haven't a clue how to provide for yourself or them, necessities such as food, clothing, furnishings or entertainment.You were never taught and never had time to learn so everything has to be bought, or provided by an outside source, usually televison or computer games or muzak. Up to your neck in debt, credit cards pay for vacations.
DaftAida, London,
In addition, stifling any residue of individuality reamaining after 11+ years of indoctrination/education, is advisable in the workplace regardless of subtle or overt intimidation or unreasonable demands, to smile sweetly, support enthusiastically and give unconditionally your time and energy if you want to either keep your position or 'get ahead'. Psychopathic behaviour is encouraged and rewarded. This useless activity can occupy up to 60 hours a week. Your 'free' time can be spent worrying about work or preparing for work or some enjoyable distraction from such. Many simply get smashed to blot the horrible reality out or fog out in front of a mind-controlling and numbing machine called a tell-a-vision. You are free to choose your friends, of course, who typically reflect your status, reinforcing it. You have the freedom to get laid every night of the week if you have the opportunity and energy and you are free to 'fall in love' but if you get married, you need another certificate.
DaftAida, London,
With sirens whirring in the background 'neath a chemtrailed cloudy and cold mid-summer's day, there are many facets to freedom to ponder.Are we not entitled to natural sunlight and to enjoy nature's cycles without pernicious interference and control without consent or, for the most part, knowledge? Information control deprives us of the knowledge necessary in order to make informed choices.If the media pretends not to notice the obvious or dutifully report such health hazards as chemtrails then people cannot be free to experience the most basic natural expectations that their government are not deliberately damaging their health and manipulating their weather. And being fed disinformation about 'global warming' , 'terrorism' and the real causes of weather changes, tsnumis and earthquakes and the true culprits behind 'terrorist' attacks. No we are not free if our minds are controlled via misleading and false information.
DaftAida, London,
This is a fine critique of Labour since 1997 - why are there no Tories capable of doing such work? Are there no intellectuals on the right of politics any more (please, don't mention those wind-sock policy wonk people who come onto Newsnight and look as mad as the Labour thugs)?
The Tories have betrayed the UK at deepest consequence for their absolute failure to criticise all this digging up of our basic freedoms and very deep advance of state control.
Read Andrew Rawnsley's Guardian piece on the eve of the last election: calling for another Labour win precisely to increase state ownership and control - the left knows what is happening, the right is colluding by its silence. The electorate is increasingly biddable by government-BBC drip drip drip messaging. And now the Tories are it seems doomed by their foolish policy of trusting in spin slipstreaming Blair.
At least we have a free press so what is happening can be at least written up for the future analysis.
BigT, Wycombe, UK
I agree with every word, I'm just surprised to see it in The Times. Certainly the press bear a large share of the blame for this state of affairs, having at best rubber stamped each new law and at worst actively canvassed for them.
Incidentally, how did standing outside the Cenotaph reciting the names of war dead become construed as 'Serious and Organised Crime'?
Brian Meredith, Hove, U.K.
The broadcast media are complicit in this:the british are the most politically backward people in Europe.
The population are clueless, gutless, sheep, who have long forgotten what freedom means.
I am leaving this country for good if the ID scheme comes in as proposed,I am not willing to be a willing and blinkered slave.
Edwina Rigby, Blackburn, England
Reading the full essay it occurred to me that there's another reason why politicians can do pretty much as they like: the sheer number of issues in which the state now has a role. Civil liberty may surface as a concern occasionally, but it will quickly get buried again by health, education, economy, crime, transport, global warming etc etc. Finding a party you agree with on even a majority of the issues is pretty much impossible, which explains why more and more people don't vote.
PT, Warwick,
Great piece. JLC is correct to point out, though, that some of the assaults on the English Common Law started long before Blair came to office. Even so, his tenure in office saw a dramatic acceleration in the erosion of traditional safeguards of liberty.
T.H.B, London, England
Fortunately most stuff the government would most like to control is available on the internet.
This, fortunately, is impossible to control.
The government is therefeore mostly left trying to catch smoke.
JD, London,
I liked that last comment from the haven from oh-so-free China!
An important question Johnson raises is the role of technology in our lives. Executives of IT companies now have more power than Government. They track our every move, know our ever thought as is it inputted into search engines. Government has tapped into this to some extent but there is much further it could go. If our economy is to be based on knowledge, innovation, science and technology that surely means we will only become more robotic, less human, and in one of Johnson’s many contradictory uses of the word, less free.
Lindsey H, Jersey, UK
British people had more freedom in the recent past because there was relatively little physical mobility and society was largely self policing. In short, very few people adopted anti social attitudes, since society was cohesive on a regional level.
Because of mass, uncontrolled immigration from people who do not observe our norms, the standards of expected behaviour have, inevitably, been diluted by their, often, undesirable presence.
Additionally, the welfare state has encouraged fecklessness and been a magnet, particularly housing, for the whole world.
martin bright, Bracknell,
I am so disenfranchised by this Government, I feel sick. If (horror of horrors) Brown were to win the next general election, I would definitely consider emigrating. When are the British people finally going to wake up as to how evil this government truly is?
Richard, Worcester, England
english society is paying for the "anything goes trendies " who jumped on the bandwagon causing a vacuum to be formed and the newton's law of action and reaction is doing its balancing act.
I came back to Britain after a long time abroad There IS a significant sickness prevalent _freedom and license are two different things.
Solve the problems___Reward the positive and get rid of the negative___work from the bottom upwards as they did in New York and on a practical note get out of the human rights bandwagon.
i WONDER HOWEVER IF ENGLISH DEMOCRACY HAS ALREADY NOT EVOLVED INTO A GAME SHOW WITHOUT ANYBODY KNOWING OR EVEN WORSE ANYONE CARING
john, nice, france
There are two views of privacy: one is concerned that the State shall not know, the other that our neighbours shall not know. Personally I take the latter view, and am quite relaxed about the database--*provided* that no private person or organization can gain access to it.
Leofranc Holford-Strevens, Oxford,
I can't write what I really want to "say" because someone, somewhere will be monitoring my views and I might end up by getting a "visit".
Free speech.......joke.
Dave Hunter, Redcar,
Eric Campbell hits the nail on the head. The secret of liberal democracy is to let people protest as much as they like, whether by writing in The Times, organising pop festivals, writing for satirical TV shows or voting Liberal Democrat in bye-elections, and then do absolutely nothing about it. If the Tories were campaigning on a promise to undo all of Blair's bans, we might have a chance, but what hope is there of that?
PT, Warwick,
When a Government begins to lose the support of the people it will attempt to survive by unleashing unlimited restrictions on the people in order to stop an all out rebellion against it and its policies. History is littered with such scenarios which for the most part have failed. The only difference between this government and that of Saddam Hussain is that Hussain did not introduce a smoking ban nor speed cameras. I will now sit and await a knock on the door for making these comments.
Steve P, Leeds, England
I wonder how many of the subjects of the "cash for honours" investigation still hold to the maxim that "those who have done nothing wrong have nothing to fear" from extended police powers?
Jamie Gilmour, Bolton, UK
Every time this government has enacted a new law to combat 'terror', the terrorists win.
The have proved themselves to be utterly inept, not even managing to kill themselves properly, given a car loaded wth petrol and gas cylinders.
Blind faith is not expertise. Just look at Blair.
Bill Bird, Wallasey, Wirral
I do not feel free at all in this country anymore, as described in this essay we are not allowed free speech without fear of upsetting some group or another. The spread of the surveillance society also is a breach of privacy. Also a question "Who is watching the people who are watching"
Christy Conroy, Leicester,
I first became aware of our lack of freedoms during the State Visit of the Chinese Premier. We were all warned that should we decide to demonstrate during the visit we would be arrested and locked up. Since then there have been many occasions where our freedoms have been denied. 9/11 was simply a useful and timely tool for the New Labour government to remove our civil liberties.
Caroline Kennedy, San Jose, Costa Rica
There is of course an alternative that thousands per week are taking up.
Simply turn around and walk away.
The UK, I can promise, looks much better from a distance.
Pu Li, Guangxi,
It may be that Johnson is so blinded by hatred of all things Blair that he really believes that Britain is subject to surveillance worse than Orwell's nightmares.
Alternatively, this is just another piece of Tory propaganda from a well-known Tory journalist. Why, I wonder, did he not object - and now dos not mention - that the CCTV invasion began under Home Secretary Michael Howard (a truly authoritarian figure).
I guess I don't win any silly prize myself for guessing it is the latter.
JLC, , LOndon,
Freedom has always been an illusion. Even freedom of speech is basically useless. You can say what you want in this country, but neither local nor national government will care a fig for what you say. You're free to say it - they're free to (always) ignore it. A 'listening politician' is an oxymoron.
eric campbell, harrogate, uk
Why does being "A Son of the Manse" (if I hear that phrase again about Drongo Brown I shall ... something) make ANY difference? Some of the most dissolute characters I have known (and I've know a few) have been the children of churchmen. And Brown never raised a FINGER to combat any of Bliar's excesses - the sop re demos is just a sop, and wait as we see even greater increases in personal surveillance, repeated pressure to raise the detention period to 90 days, and further inroads into civil liberty in the name of "preserving freedom".
Jeremy Poynton, Fromeville, 51st State
The potential for errors and false match-ups in the ID card system is truly frightening, all the more so given this government's total incompetence in implementing large database/IT projects.
Even assuming such a scheme is implemented properly, the scope for further State control of our lives is nearly limitless - just make swiping the card a requirement for buying food, bank transactions, filling prescriptions for example; the next step will be telling you you can't but this or that food because of your health etc.
No to ID cards!
Stan(expat), USA,
Fair enough. But is Johnston truly concerned about the freedom of Britons, or is he just using this as a tool to beat the Labour government? Would he be quite as condemnatory about the even more draconian measures taken by the US government against its citizens?
billy, London,
oh please! you have only yourselves to blame.You release convicted terrorist back into the british community rather than deport(because if we deport to libya they will be tortured). I bet you gave them some sweet milky tea and asked them not to do it again.You are more worried about the right of villains than law abiding citizens
lost hope, sydney,
It's called not having a constitution. Labour can't make everyone equal limiting the ability of the capable to better themselves. It's also called counter-evolution. Darwin must be spinning in his grave.
KR, Stockport,