The Liberal Dissenter

This quote was originally attributed to an American general in Vietnam. Figuratively, it also sums up the mentality of Charles Clarke and New Labour's cavalier attitude to our fundamental freedoms.

Following the London bombings, New Labour is once again suggesting that, to protect us from more terrorist attacks, we must sacrifice our civil liberties. This argument is widely accepted without question yet it is based on a false premise, that security and liberty exist in inverse proportion to one another. False it may be, but it is a clever piece of 'framing' that needs challenging.

Fortunately, there was a good quote in Charles Kennedy's speech on Monday (which the press did not report):

We have a responsibility to demonstrate how the correct balance is struck between liberty and security.

We need to show that it is not an either/or - but that we can achieve both in a Liberal Britain.

... said there were some concerns about the "looseness of the language" in the new offence of indirect incitement to terrorism but Mr Clarke had promised to clarify the situation.

The bomb attacks in London and their aftermath seem to have rendered the religious hatred bill passing through parliament almost an irrelevance. The recent eloquent and vehement condemnation by the British Muslim community of the extremist factions within its midst has successfully disabled much of the irrational criticism from far-right groups which this bill was intended to address.

It is invariably counter-productive to suppress the expression of unpalatable ideas with legislation. I would oppose equally the gagging of radical Muslim clerics. The more openly arguments are aired, the more easily they can be ridiculed, as long as those counter-arguing can display the kind of courage exhibited this week by moderate British Muslims. Arguments must be won, not suppressed, and yet suppression is a clear intent of the bill.

# posted by Simon Titley @ 1:36 am