Two awesome opportunities for a crushing blow to the dictatorial and oppressive policies set in place by the previous Labour government are approaching. The question remains, however, whether our present Conservative-led Government will rise to the challenge, and this makes the historic influence of the Liberal Democrats vital in the next few months.
The two opportunities are thus: the completion of the review into counter-terrorism measures; and the publication of the Freedom Bill, an important Liberal Democrat gain in the Coalition Agreement.
The Freedom Bill is due to be published in draft form any day now, and it is, as yet, unclear quite how far this Bill will go. There are so many areas of our lives that have become less pleasant to protest against, to voice opinion against, and to speak up about.
The police still categorise certain political activists as “domestic extremists”; the freedom of speech has been seriously undermined by such laws as the Public Order Act 1986 and the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006; and protest is still outlawed unless you obtain permission from those you are protesting against (such as the cases where campaigners for better working conditions in Bangladeshi factories recently tried to collect signatures from a shopping centre pavement near an out-of-town Asda, and were ordered by the police to leave, or the case of the democracy village recently evicted from Parliament Square).
The Freedom Bill brings great hope, but also a fearful expectation that the opportunity will be missed. Many are calling for a plethora of laws that need to be repealed, and the Liberal Democrats have been at the forefront.
I would like to state my case very firmly: protest and speaking one’s mind should no longer be criminal offences. I’m open to people insulting me, and I do not want to insult anyone else. Yet I have great concerns that language has been neutered by law. The “hate crimes”, which in the case of Dale McAlpine resulted in his arrest for stating his adherence to a particular viewpoint as to the morality of homosexual acts, and in Scotland can see one arrested and charged with using abusive language even in one’s own home, are compromising the very basis upon which democratic debate is based, summed up by Voltaire’s famous quote, “I may not agree with what you say, but I shall defend your right to say it to the death.” When we are unable to voice certain opinions, the foundations of critical thought, political debate, and the ability to express views that differ from the prevailing wind of politically correct consensus are gravely undermined.
I have, therefore, begun a petition to call on the Prime Minister to legislate for the protection of free speech.
There is another profound opportunity: the completion of the Review of Counter-Terrorism Powers and Legislation.
We must not let the Government respond to this lightly. The review is hampered by having such a narrow remit, yet as it stands gives opportunity to end the hideous situation where over 100,000 stop and searches produced exactly zero arrests for terrorism-related offences.
The scandal of house arrest, more euphemistically called control orders, must also be swept aside. It is no good preaching to Burma about Aung San Suu Kyi whilst we have people in this country with severe restrictions placed on them on the basis of secret evidence.
Which brings me to my point: given that the Home Secretary has made dangerously ambiguous decisions on policy regarding civil liberties, and that many of the laws that hinder political and lifestyle freedom are the legacy of Thatcher’s and Major’s Conservative governments, the position of the Liberal Democrats in the coalition government must be used to its fullest to ensure that the State becomes the enabler of free political and social discourse, and not the enemy of it.
The Liberal Democrat leadership, many of whom are ministers, cannot allow the Conservatives to further the authoritarian crackdown on civil freedoms that has ridden roughshod over ordinary citizens for the past 30 years. It is not the time for moral cowardice. It is not the time to be best pals in the Coalition. It is time to stand for the values, not only of the Liberal Democrat party, but of the very basis of a healthy and functioning liberal democracy.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
From Norman settlement to a civic square
Northern Ireland debates the future of its railways in 1957
Church Green video
Thinking of standing for election or re-election next year? Helpful questions to consider
Steve Trevethan
Kira Collins
Daniel Walker
Andrew Tampion
10 Comments
Getting rid of control orders is a great ideal, but in the environment that we live in, what would be your suggestion to replace them with?
If there are known terrorists actively planning domestic attacks, then do we just wait for them to be carried out and then look to proscecute after?
Please explain your alternative.
You’re right, this is a brilliant opportunity. And I think there are elements of the Tory party on the front and back benches who want to see this happen too – David Davis, Ken Clarke, etc. If the leadership play their cards right and position this the right way, it could win support across the political spectrum, from lefty Guardian lawyers to stop-the-State-interfering Mail readers.
I think you may be too late.
Channel 4 reported two days ago that the Coalition Cabinet has decided to keep Control Orders in place.
As for the right to protest – you have a short memory.
How long ago was it that the Coalition stood by and watched as Parliament Square was “cleaned up” of legitimate protestors?
The giant opportunity was when Nick Clegg could have inserted red lines into the Coalition agreement saying “we won’t bend on this”. That he didn’t and is content to sit on the front bench slapping George Osborne on the back, then telling the media that “I did it with no relish” speaks volumes for Liberal values.
Nero fiddles, while Roma burns.
All very well and good and a key part of the Coalition agreement, however these paragraphs come to mind:
“We will introduce a programme to preserve the ability of the security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies to obtain communication data and to intercept communications within the appropriate legal framework.
“This programme is required to keep up with changing technology and to maintain capabilities that are vital to the work these agencies do to protect the public.
“Communications data provides evidence in court to secure convictions of those engaged in activities that cause serious harm. It has played a role in every major Security Service counterterrorism operation and in 95 per cent of all serious organised crime investigations.
“We will legislate to put in place the necessary regulations and safeguards to ensure that our response to this technology challenge is compatible with the Government’s approach to information storage and civil liberties.”
Effectively a de-centralised and distributed Interception Modernisation Programme. Both Parties were against the IMP. The coalition agreement was also against it.
Now the coalition is in favour of the IMP but only on a distributed model.
Umm how about if we have evidence (including intercept evidence) that they have broken the law we arrest them and try them in a Court of Law and if they are guilty we send them to prison. If we don’t have such evidence we don’t arrest them just as with any other crime.
Kind of the whole point of innocent until proven guilty really
Thank you for the initial comments.
I agree, BigotBasher and Cuse: the Coalition has given decidedly mixed signals on civil liberties. It has seemed to me at times that the rhetoric is diametrically opposed to the actual action. I think, however, that Cuse is making too much of the reports from the media – yes, certain parts of Government and especially the security services are pushing hard for the retention of control orders – but there is still all to play for.
My understanding is that the counter terrorism review will be published in December. The review is being carried out by Home Office officials and being overseen by Lord Macdonald. He is apparently wholly unpersuaded by the arguments being put forward by the Home Office and the security services to keep control orders.
There are quite a few Conservative ministers and MPs who are opposed to control orders, as well as some more extreme campaigners on the fringes of the Conservative party.
I don’t think the Lib Dems in the coalition government are giving mixed messages on civil liberties (apart from Jeremy Browne on last night’s Question Time). It’s clear from the press reports (Andrew Rawnsley) that there is an almighty row going on behind the scenes.
The problem is getting the Conservatives to have some backbone and stand up to the security services who are doing their usual “we know terrible things that you don’t know” routine. This is no doubt true, but that doesn’t make control orders effective, proportionate, fair or in accordance with British values.
So, if you know any Conservatives – get them to write to their MP or any parliamentarian they know asking them to oppose the control order scheme and asking them to get in contact with Teresa May and David Cameron and making it clear to them it’s not acceptable for a system of house arrest to operate in this country.
That’s a good comment Jo! Yes, I think that there is a mighty battle going on – my comment as to “mixed messages” does not refer to Lib Dems in Government. But one must admit that Theresa May, and some other Conservatives, are perhaps less willing to bring the required balance.
There have been moves by the Home Office that are counter civil liberties, such as the one pointed out by BigotBasher.
We do, so much, need the Lib Dem MPs, and especially ministers, to stand firm on one of the defining liberal values – civil freedom.
There is also a petition (and rather amusing video) on this at http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/s/right-to-campaign-in-public