How much did you drink last week? In Harrogate 26.4% of you had between 12 and
17 “large” glasses of wine (depending on your sex), in Mole Valley 25.5% of
you did, and in Leeds 25.3%. Don’t ask me how the government knows this. It
apparently wants to “target middle-class drinkers”. Public money must be
squandered, so why not measure the nation’s drinking habits?
Meanwhile the makers of the film, The Bourne Ultimatum, needed a location
where a character could be watched by police as he moved step by step about
the city. Did they use Moscow or Berlin or New York? No, they used London.
They did so because Britain is the world capital of surveillance, deploying
a fifth of the global stock of closed-circuit television cameras, even
though the Home Office admitted last week that they were next to useless.
In America last Thursday, Tony Blair, our former prime minister, demanded
vigilance against what he portrayed as a “fascist” Iranian assault on
western values. These values he listed vaguely as “liberty, democracy,
freedom of speech and thought”. Blair has never, to my knowledge, defined
these words in terms that could be measured against his own performance,
lest it draw attention to how far modern government infringes them. So who
is to defend these values on the home front?
Jacqui Smith, the home secretary, wants to give the police and others access
to all mobile phone records - and one day possibly the satellite tracking of
car movements. Smith wants to supplement this material with electronic
identity cards, including personal and criminal details, and computerised
medical records. If the lord chief justice and others get their way the DNA
of every native of, and visitor to, Britain will be added to this mighty
store.
Given the number of access points - police, National Health Service,
Whitehall, local councils and insurance companies - and given the ease of
modern computer hacking, every Briton’s life story will be open to all and
vulnerable to all. One result is that millions may find it impossible to get
credit or insurance cover.
Other ministers are no less assiduous. Lecturers at London’s Imperial College
have been delivered a stern warning. They should ascertain the exact ages of
students and not be alone with any who are under 18. The college must first
subject them to “appropriate Criminal Records Bureau disclosure” for fear
they might be on the sex offenders’ register. Such paranoid red tape applies
to academics in no other country.
Round at health they are vexed by news of cigarette smoke blowing back through
open doors. The result is a “prevailing wind” protocol that requires smoke
exhalation to take place not less than 6 metres from a door or window
opening. (Tape measures should be included in every cigarette packet.) Last
week came the information that half of all Britons “could be clinically
obese” within 25 years. Adding in as many costs as officials could imagine
to scare ministers into legislation, they came up with a charge to the
nation of a stunning £45 billion a year by 2050. They suggested bans on the
advertising and sale of fatty foods.
As an additional horror to justify further control, they claimed the
proportion of “middle-class adults” drinking “above sensible” quantities of
alcohol was “from 14.1% to 26.4%”. Such idiot exactitude applied to
subjective concepts is reminiscent of the Soviet Union.
The twin forces of personal surveillance and nanny statism are operating a
pincer movement against Blair’s “shared values”. Of course, anybody walking
through a British town centre is upset by the number of fat people on the
street and by scenes of youthful drunkenness. In the centre of York earlier
this month I watched a man selling killer portions of hamburger to a queue
of universally obese men, women and children. The experience was as
offensive visually as it was medically. For a brief moment I would have
applauded his removal by the police.
Voltaire and John Stuart Mill insisted there should be an ideological chasm
between disapproving an act and wanting it halted. In modern Britain this
chasm has become a skip and a jump. Whatever we dislike we require the
government to ban.
Why not ban the sale of fatty foods, as it had done in school canteens? Surely
it should ban smoking anywhere, since it “kills”. And why not ban the
walking of dogs in parks, the use of cycles on pavements, swimming in the
sea and all physical contact of children by adults? I can drum up a news
story showing all these activities as detrimental to the general wellbeing.
I accept that there is a case for ID cards: a few careless fraudsters and
immigrants might be stopped from cheating on social security but this is not
remotely worth £12 billion of public money. The case for a nationwide
medical computer is equally trivial. It is that paramedics might give the
wrong drug to an accident victim who has forgotten his allergies but can
remember his NHS Pin number. Nobody balances a cost above £15 billion
against the benefit, let alone against the general infringement of privacy
and the certainty of computer hacking by insurers and others. In all these
cases, ministers merely deploy the dictator’s gambit that the “innocent have
nothing to fear”.
While the melody of liberty plays sweet in the clouds, down below authority
has all the best tunes. Complain about Whitehall’s obsession with health and
safety and someone will belabour you with a man who fell off a ladder.
The fixation with paedophilia after the Soham murders has led to a lunatic
investigatory regime that assumes all in childcare are guilty of terrible
crimes until proved innocent. Too bad if thousands of volunteers are driven
from such work and parents are left with their children under lock and key.
I have no doubt that when the Madeleine McCann tragedy is resolved there
will be “calls” to extend negligence laws to parental behaviour on holiday.
This disproportionate authoritarianism is the legacy of Blair’s Britain,
unamended by Gordon Brown. They may talk about values, but at the coal face
they are backsliders. Every decision of government must come with a “risk
assessment”, one of the most useless generators of red tape and
maladministration ever invented. A policeman cannot save a drowning boy or
be sent on a drugs raid without a training certificate and safety check.
Fine words are spoken about helping children to be adventurous, but if a
child has an accident at school, health and safety officials will strive to
put some teacher in jail. Not for nothing are banana republics run by
“committees of public safety”. Who could object to safety, as if better safe
than free?
Of course red lines must be drawn, between individuals and the state as
between the state and the European super-state but we have forgotten red
lines for the former. Public expectation is of a safer Britain and of a
government that will, to some degree, ensure it. But nobody knows what that
degree should be. There is a case for educating the public to eat, drink and
smoke less, drive more carefully and not to rampage through town centres at
night. But there must be a limit to the translation of disapproval into
repression.
Each new straw may seem sensible in itself until suddenly we have broken the
camel’s back. We find that we have crossed the line from a mature,
responsible democracy into an arthritic and fearful police state. Aspects of
British public administration are reminiscent of the Taliban.
The only real defence of Blair’s “liberty, democracy and freedom” is to
demand, constantly and tediously, that each extension of state power be
justified as proportionate, cost-effective and consonant with these values.
The onus should be on the executive to justify intrusion and repression, not on
individuals to resist it. There is no way that ID cards pass this test.
All acts of government already submit to a safety and risk audit. They should
submit also to a liberty audit. Mill declared that “over his own mind and
body the individual is sovereign”, a sovereignty to be infringed by the
state only in his explicit dealings with others. Such infringements should
be monitored day in, day out. There is no other way of guarding the values
we preach so smugly to others yet ignore ourselves.
Surely even Blair has learnt that going to war is not enough.
simon.jenkins@sunday-times.co.uk
How can it change now? The only people capable of getting into power now have a vested interest in keeping the people under control whie they feather their own nests. By the way, we have cycle lanes on some roads here but you could grow old waiting for a cyclist to come along.
Rod, Preston, uk
We seem to be ruled by the health and safety commission and supernanny combined.
Laws are being brought in to ban things which may, influence a small number of people- who are pre-disposed to anti-social behaviour anyway.
It really is beginning to feel like someone is constantly looking over our shoulders, just in case we think about doing something, which might 'upset the vicar'.
Steven Dorif, Salford, England
A patriot is defined as a person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion. So if you thought Patrioct Act 1 was bad, just wait for Patriot Act 2...
http://w2.eff.org/Censorship/Terrorism_militias/patriot-act-II-analysis.php.
If only Britain had a politician like Ron Paul to fight the cause (72 years old btw, Ming hang your head in shame!)
Andy C, London, UK
An excellent article, but one point it misses is the "Dangerous Pictures Act" concealed in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill 2007 which will introduce pure Thought Crime!
It will criminalise "extreme or violent pornography" and relies on the apathy or distaste of the people to sneak in a law that would get you three years in jail, for possessing an image that in someone's subjective opinion "appears to risk serious harm" and is "for sexual arousal".
This doesn't mean harm was actually *caused* to anyone, it just has to *look* that way.
The idea is that "if people don't see stuff like that, they won't try to copy it", but it denies adults the right to make up their own minds what is or isn't acceptable for them to view.
This is legislation being passed based on nothing more than the personal tastes of certain MPs who don't trust us to behave in a responsible way.
Graham Marsden, Portsmouth, UK
I have a question for someone who knows something about the Whitehall Taleban: if their control is so effective why can't they stop internet fraud and junk mail?
Rob, Reading,
The UK is getting closer to a single rule of law where everything that is not mandatory is forbidden.
This government seems determined to criminalise the majority of the population by systematic use of fear-factor legislation to threaten the majority of law-abiding people with prison sentences but does little to manage the actual violence and abuse practised by a minority.
Labour was voted a huge majority and have systematically used it to strip the electorate of any voice by railroading endless new law. It will never be possible to know what Tony said to Gordon in their private and "bully boys" closed meetings, previous governments left records. Not this one.
Thought crime is heading for the statute books: prison sentences for people caught with "extreme pornography", even though it's not clear if the people or the pictures are supposed to be dangerous, or who is supposed to be at risk. Even if it's fake.
Write to your MP, they are meant to be working for YOU
J Fox, London, UK
This should be compulsory reading for evreyone in the U|K.
MAybe someone will invade us and give us democracy, human rights, freedom of speech and rid us of this oppressive government
charlie, Glasgow,
Let's not forget that it's exceedingly difficult to secure convictions without watertight evidence. CCTV footage is proving very useful...
ken, london,
Simon - this article is bang on the money! Thanks for saying exactly what I feel.
Luci, Enfield, UK
And to think people wonder why a large group of American voters are vehemently against electing Hillary Clinton.
She is the poster child for this kind of "feel safer" regulation, the succesor to "feel good" legslation.
LP Beron, Jefferson, Louisiana
Which group of people in society loves rules, regulations and
laws the most? Which profession makes up the bulk of the
cabinet ministers who produce the ever increasing amounts
of legislation? I give you LAWYERS!
In an ideal world politicians should spend all their time
reducing the amount of rules people are asked to live by
until we have the state of nirvana known as anarchy.
John, LONDON,
Another great article promoting individual liberty. We own our own bodies and the government can stick it.
I am sick of the continual invasion of our liberties. Individuals should take responsibilities for themselves and that includes the consequences of bad decisions.
Unfortunately there is no party which actually promotes liberty anymore. They all want to take it away, just in different ways.
Cameron, London,
Wow. Mr Jenkins, you almost wrote an entire article without mentioning war, Iraq and Blair in the same sentence.
As another (repressed) debate shows at present, our obsession with equality is responsible for so many of society's ills, one wonders whether the cost of enforcing equality has ever been figured in.
Edwin Thornber, Bucharest,
Another masterly piece from Simon Jenkins, the best political commentator in Britain. Fear not, the British people will wake up. What other choice is there? Cameron will add the destruction of New Labour's authoritarian state to his party's manifesto,the next Tory landslide is assured, and the Labour party will reap the rewards of its decade of attacks on British democracy.
david , bedford ,
This is the start up towards a new inquisition. We are all going to be known in detail and therefore easy meat for the new inquisitors.
The decline in the protestant faith has coincided with this new society that spies on you. The reformers fought and died for all our liberties.
Martin Luther, Rome,
Extremely well written Simon, a pity more British people cannot wake up and smell the roses, waiting for the next election may be too late, we need positive action by the electorate NOW before we are banned, legislated and Polictically Corrected into fearful submission.
Les, Southport, England
Hear! Hear!
It's about time there was some real political debate, leadership and action about this. The only question is: where is the politician with the b***s to champion this cause?
Guy Stevens, Zurich, Switzerland
Good Article - I am reminded of Herbert Spencer's statement that the consequences of shielding men from the results of their folly is to fill the world with fools. Sadly It seems as though the tide has some way to go before turning, as ever it needs a full-blown crisis such as a war to force people to see the results of their folly, until then wise words such as yours will continue to be ignored.
John Michell, Freiburg, Germany
John Michell, Freiburg, Germany
The ironic? thing is that all this interfering in our lives is what is causing the problems. What has anyone to actually look forward to but repression and scraping by.
Who can blame the youth for drinking if all they feel they are going to be doing is some meaningless job, being berated for not being a drone.
People are humans and have free choice, which unfortunately they can no longer express.
Matthew Bramall, Wadhurst, East Sussex
I think personnaly think that the fact for the public autorities to keep a close watch to all of us is certainly dangerous with regards to our futur individual liberties!
A little years ago, I remermber that I did not want to have a credit card because I was affraid to be spied!! today credit card is practically essential to live in the society. Governents , step by step, will oblige us to be spotted!
Regards
samuel, Lyon, France
A recent poll in Canada showed the vast majority of Torontonians wanting more surveillance cameras.This question was posed under the guise of safety and was listed as unsientific,but,the results were so lopsided that there is little doubt people want them.Safety has become such a fleeting thing that people will grasp at any solution if they think it will help.
ron, toronto,
Masterly piece by Simon Jenkins. The Orwellian nightmare is now firmly embedded. The main reason that I'm looking to emigrate to warmer and more liberal climes.
George, Bolton,
Well said Simon! The constant intrusion by government into all apects of personal freedom makes me nauseous. The squandering of OUR money on frippery and statistical nonsense beggars belief. Meanwhile whitehall mandarins feather their own nests while issuing blanket statements about how we must be managed in our personal activities for our own good. I used to be proud of my country but events since 1997 make me long to be elsewhere.
Tom, Uppingham, UK
The "use of cycles on pavements" is already banned. Indeed we have a cycle path between two neighbouring towns. At a certain point it ceases to be a cycle lane and becomes a normal path. A community police officer told my 17 year old daughter, who was cylcling to her piano lesson, to ride on the road even though it is a recently de-trunked major arterial road and is bristling with lorries, and even though recently a school-boy was sucked off the cycle-lane by a passing lorry and killed. But hey they're just doing their job. However, a few weeks later, an adult friend of mine was told not even to cycle on the cycle lane.
Rachel Moss, Desborough, UK
Well said. And let us not forget the modern vocabulary: war against terrorism, fight against drugs, struggle against AIDS, constant this and that about the "enemy", "facism" and in the same breath "enemies of our liberties and values", .....and a whole assortment of similar, aggressive end-of-the-world kind of speech which is, from time to time, tinted with religious tones of my god vs. your god. For good measure, the word radical and Islam are fused together more often than reality (as if there are no radical Christians or Jews).
The fact is that it has become big business-- there are gizmos to be sold to the government and policians, maintenance contracts and massive media hype from business newspapers to tabloids. Airport "security", building guards, uneducated pseudo-police, Blackwater mercenaries..... without this aggressive war-minded bias, none of these neo-industries will have revenues.
Ali (in Tehran), Tehran, Iran
The real tragedy is that the British people seem more than happy with New Labour's authoritarian state. They have no problem with the demolition of their civil liberties, legal rights and basic, historic checks and balances. They are happy to be barcoded like supermarket meat for their ID cards. They support the deluge of sledgehammer bans, the summary and arbitary justice, the uncontroled, endemic surveillance that rivals that of any dictatorship . It does not bother them that their home is no longer their castle and that an ever growing army of 'officials' can demand entry to it.
New Labour has been the most authoritarian, reckless and sinister Government this country has ever witnessed. The distinct, well defined and sacred space that used to exist between the citizen and the State has been utterly breached. Yet it has been part of a winning formula. It's one thing to lose faith in politicians but to lose faith in your own people is for me, utterly heartbreaking.
Dave H, cannock, England
Every time we legislate due to being fearful, the terrorists and evil doers win.
We're so busy looking over our shoulder to check if we're being done for this or that, we can't think straight about who are the people taking away our freedom piece by peice.
The Public Sector, I dream of doing parts of it to death.
Bill Bird, Wallasey, Wirral
Right on. This was so well written, I am refreshed to see other waking up to the repression that the golbal war on "terror" is creating. It is nothing but fear mongering, and will lead to civil unrest, which will lead to a police state - just what they want.
mdh, boise, USA
I currently live in the People's Republic of China. Sometimes, it's hard to make the distinction between this one-party state and my homeland. I am seriously concerned about the growing chasm between personal freedom and economic freedom, which seems to be appearing across much of the developed and developing world.
The Chinese middle-classes, generally, seem quite content to sacrifice their personal liberty, as long as the CCP does not impinge their freedom to make money. This is equally true of the same social group in the UK. Money, ostensibly a source of extended personal power, has had the opposite effect. More and more Chinese feel they have little choice but to work longer and longer hours, in order to increase their chances of survival in the CCP's economic dystopia. In the UK, recent university graduates feel similar pressures: mortgage applications, pension provisions etc. Ultimtately, time is the what we rely upon to enable free thought. It is slowly vanishing.
Will Simmati, Hefei, China,
All of the nannystatism you identify is but a shadow of what will be done in the name of the global warming nonsense that your media is swallowing whole cloth.
happyfeet, Studio City, CA
Cameras, ID cards, data bases were never required when Britain was a homogeneous society with a small immigrant intake. The population was largely law abiding and things like gun crime, mugging and gang warfare were isolated events. What changed? - Britain lost control of its borders in the 50's , penalised its own citizens for objecting to that and regularly demoted them to second best in its quest for the 'modern' economy. Now Britain is a sad reminder of what can happen when a Government ignores its people and so messes up its cultural identity that it becomes confused and apologetic for just being British. How many more generations will pass before unnecessarily imported terrorism, and violent crime can be said to have been bred out and how many of Britains hard fought for social benefits like the NHS, good schooling and social security will die as a result of fraud, mis-use and being overwhelmed by mass immigration?
graham casey, Perth, australia
Big Brother Blair and Big Brother Brown are watching Simon very carefully - this is not the first time that he has shown less than 100% love for Big Brother. I wouldn't be surprised if Simon gets done for putting recyclable stuff into the rubbish bin, or looking askance at a diversity person on the street - the bureaucrats are no doubt already planning their devious, secret revenge.
Dan O'Rourke, Bristol,
Great article
And I'm amazed the British people have sleptwalked into this semi-totalitarian dystopia. The threat to your freedom and liberty, the incessant nanny statism and control freakery are becoming so overwhelming, it's difficult to imagine the British people waking from their coma. The same can be said of the decimation of your education system, the politicisation of your media, of monetary debasement and the hijacking of your economy by dubious financial and banking institutions and our one way ticket into the European super bureaucracy.
Britain! WAKE UP!
The Americans, sliding inexorably towards fascism under Bush, have discovered an alternative. Find out for yourself by doing an internet search for Ron Paul, the antiwar republican candidate for the presidential elections in 2008.
Someone bring back freedom and liberty for the British and American people PLEEEEASSSEEE!!!!!!!
Thomas Jefferson, Washington DC, USA