Thorne Godinho is a member of the Democratic Alliance, the Lib Dems’ sister party in South Africa.
Since 1997 the United Kingdom has brought in new laws that many fascists would wholeheartedly admire. Civil liberties, individual freedoms, personal autonomy and private property rights are ignored by the Labour-run government – who would rather pursue their idea of a better society, than a free one.
Tony Blair’s dynamic leadership, coupled with the more centrist vision of his party, won New Labour the election in 1997; but 13 years of Labour rule has shown that the former socialist party is still essentially a supporter of large government and overbearing control of the populace.
To track the breakdown of freedom in Britain one merely needs to look at Labour’s criminal justice policies, which Chris Huhne, the LibDem’s Shadow Home Secretary, has called ‘legislative diarrhoea’. Labour’s idea of being tough on crime does not include tackling the crimes people actually care about or improving the appalling conviction rates, but rather introducing absurd laws which have led to the mass criminalisation of Britain’s youth.
As Huhne describes:
Britain is the sick man of Europe in terms of youth justice. We have the lowest age of criminal responsibility and highest rate of youth imprisonment. In Labour’s first decade in power, a million children were convicted of a criminal offence and another million were cautioned.”
In 2006 there were 4.2 million CCTV cameras in Britain, roughly one camera for every 14 people. Labour has created 4300 new criminal offences – including so-called Anti-Social Behaviour Orders or ASBOs – since it came to power. The British government now prohibits begging, performing music in public for tips, loitering, and even whistling, amongst other things.
Through many of these bizarre laws, regulations and surveillance policies the government is encroaching on citizens’ personal freedoms. Hundreds of thousands of young people’s futures are at risk because of government policy, condemning them to a life free of opportunity. Furthermore, smoking and hunting bans now effectively mean that private property rights are disregarded, signalling even further state intervention into the lives of private citizens and thus into the economy.
Gordon Brown and his statist Labour cronies would like the British electorate to believe that a vote for their party is a vote for the myth of a “Future Fair for All”. Economic and social freedoms are indelibly linked to fairness; thus Labour’s campaign slogan is rather ironic, as they have managed to create an unjust society with an authoritarian government.
Instead of curbing personal freedoms in the name of crime prevention, the Lib Dems will put 10,000 more police on the streets. The party will curb the state’s intervention into the lives of private citizens, and make government more democratic and transparent.
Britain desperately needs positive change, and only the Liberal Democrats have the policies that will create a fairer and freer Britain.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Remembering Liz Truss and her dogs that barked at drones
We do have a two-tier policing system but it is not what our homegrown racists think it is.
From Norman settlement to a civic square
Church Green video
Ruth Bright
Tom Bailey
Alex Macfie
William Wallace
6 Comments
Allowing for various changes in the popular definition of socialism since the likes of Robert Owen first used the term, although Labour had socialist elements, it wasn’t a socialist party… it was the British Labour Party.
I always have taken this to be driven by half a dozen or so CCTV cameras on a bus or a wheen in a supermarket or even more in a large shopping centre (or, I don’t know, LibDem HQ). I can’t say I ever have felt threatened… we’re looked at by dozens of strangers every day, cameras don’t become ju-ju magic which steal our souls.
This will likely be met with howls of indignation, but I don’t even have a problem with ID cards (which are present in many other EU countries, if we’re comparing the UK unfavourably). Vocal opposition appears to go hand-in-hand with vocal support for tightly knitted state financial/social/medical care. Either this should be efficient and non-wasteful, with knowledge of who’s due what; without proper monitoring, it will be unweildly and wasteful. Especially as supporters of it and opponents of CCTV/ID also tend to support market-economy style immigration.
I can’t say I ever have met a minor who had a criminal record. But, if ‘criminalizing’ British youth involves preventing common vandalism or street disturbances, many people would actually care about that.
I agree with that. And I neither smoke nor have any desire to hunt.
At the point where this fella seriously tries to tell us that the British government prohibits loitering and whistling, it becomes clear that this is not an article to treat seriously – “sister party” or not.
Yeah, Malcolm, I was going to mention that, but thought it would be too much considering the rest of what I said.
I suspect this refers to a West Indian man being charged for hissing through his teeth, c. 2000. This ain’t whistling!
“At the point where this fella seriously tries to tell us that the British government prohibits loitering and whistling, it becomes clear that this is not an article to treat seriously – “sister party” or not.”
When delivering a comment such as this one it becomes clear that you have obviously missed the point of the article — the destruction of personal liberty by the Labour government.
To criticise a call for more freedom in the UK based on a sentence is a bit silly; especially when I used those examples SPECIFICALLY because they highlight the oppressive behaviour of the British government. Look at these two examples (which prove that the state has cracked down on personal freedoms, as described in my article):
1) Man jailed after harassing elderly neighbours by whistling — http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1144462/Man-jailed-harrassing-elderly-neighbours-whistling-Addams-Family-theme-time-saw-them.html
2) Loitering Youths — http://www.bnwa.org.uk/antisocialloiteringyouths.htm
Thorne: read your own references.* Neither of them shows that whistling or loitering has been “prohibited” by the government. Of course that wasn’t the whole point of your article, and if your argument is that this government cares little for personal liberty then I wouldn’t disagree. You may simply be overselling your case in the interests of rhetorical effect; in which case, take my point to be that your rhetoric simply undermines your point by making it look as if you believe every paranoid anti-Labour myth that the press and the dear old internet promote. (Your reference in your last comment to the “destruction” of personal liberty is more hyperbole. It doesn’t impress me.)
*Though read anything emanating from the Daily Mail with extreme care. I don’t know how familiar you are with the British media, but the Mail is the home of paranoid, hate-filled panic-mongering which lies, distorts and lies again, so nothing it says should ever be believed in the absence of supporting information.
You’re having a laff, Thorne.
Your first link is to one story in which the whistling could more accurately be described as the tactic used by a persistent stalker and bully (such people often follow seemingly minor actions to make their victims look petty by complaining). Likewise, a West Indian hissing through his teeth is similar to my giving someone repeated Agincourt salutes, and should be treated the same (however that may be).
Then you link to a synopsis of a piece of legislation which would would be an issue only if one is an arch-libertarian. I don’t deny there may have been blameless youngster caught up in relevant legislation, but elderly residents or, indeed, anyone who is not an anti-social yob would object to gaggles of youths loitering on street corners despoiling the area with tins and ciggies and their ruckus.
I don’t have a problem with youths being-out-and-about. Just the ones who despoil the area with tins and ciggies and their ruckus.
Liberty is a two way street. Yes, we should have personal liberty, but we should also be free not be be heckled in the street or find the detritus of impromptu parties on our streets.
Would you call this an infringement on the right to practice apiary? As you’re in South Africa, d’you think Julius Malema has been unfairly prevented from signing political protest songs?