There’s much frisson in the blogsphere following the speech by Tony Blair to launch his Respect [sic] agenda. Talk Politics has an excellent deconstruction that I thoroughly recommend that you read. Jason over at Chicken Yogurt is equally damning. Then toddle over to Neil Harding’s place and expect a surprise – or not. Neil, unfortunately has fallen for the rhetoric completely. My first reaction was an angry response in his comments section – whereby I pointed out that the prime minister is wrong. Not only is he wrong, he has no moral compass. Short term populism is not a solution for deeply ingrained issues. Issues that, despite his spin are not confined to the 21st Century. The gin soaked mob was as present in the 18th and 19th centuries as it is now. The tipple is lager these days, but the principle remains. It is not about modernity, it is about the human condition. There will always be crime and there will always be anti social behaviour. What matters is how society deals with it. Criminalising innocent people is not how to deal with it. Neil makes this point:
“It[sic] terms of low level punishment for low level crimes, it is BETTER to punish the innocent than to let the guilty go free.
Being innocent and getting a 100 pound fine is not the end of the world. Dishing out fast and proportionate punishment to the guilty benefits us all by lessening the chance of them progressing to worse crimes.”
I have to admit to being staggered that anyone could believe this. Fining an innocent person does not solve anything. It creates a whole new problem. As an aside; I suffer from migraines. When in full flow, the outward symptoms include; pallid skin, incoherence, unsteadiness and vomiting. Sound familiar? In the unfortunate event of suffering one in a public place, I could well find myself subject to an on the spot fine for being drunk and disorderly – this despite being teetotal because, ironically, among other things, alcohol is a migraine trigger. How, exactly, does fining me for having a migraine solve anti social behaviour and how, exactly is this a good thing? And, no £100 is not the end of the world, but at the moment it’s a large sum of money I can ill afford to lose. And why the fuck should I?
The presumption of innocence is not a bureaucratic burden (unless you are a fascist megalomaniac). It is not there because of tradition, it is not there to protect the civil liberties of the guilty. It exists to serve the rights of us all. Wrongful conviction does not just damage the person convicted; it means that the guilty go free. Empowered and with a sense of invincibility, they are free to offend again. How, exactly, is this a good thing? If antisocial behaviour is not being effectively prosecuted because the police and justice system is overly bureaucratic, then provide more resource and reduce some of the bureaucracy, by all means – but do not remove the principle. The presumption of innocence; the requirement for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt; these must remain sacrosanct for the benefit of us all.
Back in the early nineties, I recall watching Tony Blair’s rise to front bench politics. Mrs Longrider and I commented that this was what the Labour party needed; a modern, young, progressive person to lead us to power and hopefully a fresh, changed Britain. George Bernard Shaw admonished us to be careful about what we wish for as we may get it. Didn’t we just?
My decision to leave the Labour party because it has lost sight of its principles and any sense of morality is underlined by the PM’s latest pronouncement. An announcement I could not have believed back then. With hindsight, I look back at the euphoria of the 1st May 1997 – and realise now, that the best thing for Britain on that day would have been a Major victory.
I did enjoy seeing ‘Tone’ under fire from the public on TV last night. He just hasn’t got a clue about about real life in this country.
”’Longrider replies: I have come to the conclusion that he hasn’t much of a clue about anything much. That, or he is the spawn of Satan…”’
Like you I left the Labour Party soon after it became clear it was becoming the TB Party. But I’m with him (and you?) on this one.
Whether it’s a question of the ‘modern condition’ or the ‘human condition’ is irrelevant, I feel. We have done a lot to get rid of, for example, wife-beating and prejudice of all sorts, so let’s try and get rid of anti-social behaviour, too.
After all, there are many countries in the world where it’s almost unknown, and it’s usually due to a strong sense of belonging to society (e.g. Asian and Islamic countries). Maybe this is what we (as a secular European society) need to focus on.
However, saying it’s worth doing at the expense of simple justice is purely ridiculous. I can’t believe anyone would propose such twaddle.
But, as Enoch Powell(?) said – “every political career ends in failure”. Looks like Tony’s just decided to embark full pelt along the downward slope already…
Longrider, in the migraine example you give, you would just contest the fine, take it to court, explain your legitimate reason and the fine would be rescinded. Anyone with a legitimate excuse like this would be fine.
”’Longrider replies: No. I don’t expect to be fined in the first place. Innocent until proven guilty is an absolute that must never be compromised – ever. Fining innocent people and expecting them to go to court and prove it later is not – under any circumstance – acceptable.”’
”’On your blog, you mention road traffic offences – there are strict guidelines on evidence for these and the offender may challenge the evidence and go to court – or pay the fixed penalty. These offences are much more readily proven through, for example, video or photographic evidence that clearly shows identifying features (number plate). I don’t accept that this is a good method of prosecution, but at least there is “some” protection for the innocent driver. Proving antisocial behaviour – or not – is far too woolly and far too open to abuse. Nope. Absolutely not.”’
”’You see, how, exactly, do I prove that it was a migraine after the event? I can’t. How do I prove that I am teetotal? I can’t.”’
Sandy do you really think that Islamism is a good model to copy? It embeds in immutable law both prejudice and wife beating along with a whole host of other nasties. And if the offspring of the Satan didn’t have enough troubles to be compared to Tony Blair. They where born evil, Tony chose it, and we have 5 more years at least of this shower running the show. With luck this will just be a PR exercise that comes to nothing in the end, but I am not at all optimistic.
Chris, there’s good and there’s bad in all religions. You can not say that Islam is a ‘nasty’ religion – unless you really believe what you read in The Sun and the Daily Mail!
I used it as an example of a society that feels (and is) more ‘united’ and comfortable with itself than ours. People generally have more respect for each other, and others, in such countries/societies.
That’s been my experience, anyway, having lived in moslem countries for many years. And I do prefer to believe my own eyes and ears, rather than those of Fleet Street.
The removal of the presumption of innocence is the thin end of the wedge, but I am getting acustomed to saying that and one shudders to think what is to come if this is still the thin end.
I still fail to see how anyone really benefits from the removal of human rights in this arbitrary fashion, it is the equivalent of a parent not letting their child ever leave the house so that nothing can happen to them.
The notion that it is acceptable to redress the balance of a wrongful conviction at a later point is utterly ridiculous, where does one draw the line? Was it acceptable therefore for the Guildford 4 and Birmingham 6 to have been wrongfully imprisoned because it “protected” us from terrorism at the time?
Actually I remember London at the time and far from preventing terrorism it heightened fears and of course did not harm the IRA in any way shape or form since their personel were not even incarcerated, but it did make people more maleable and allowed the Tories to start a process of repressive Home Office legislation which Labour have now taken on to an extent that even those of us who saw Blair as a Tory in 1996 could not have foreseen in our worst nightmares.
We are living in one of the free-est nations in the world, it is worth remembering that before you go off on one about state control etc and Labour being the bad guys and authoritarian.
It is frankly a ridiculous claim. This government has done more for libertarians than the Conservatives have ever done. The Human rights legislation, freedom of information bill, transparency of party funding, reinstatement of statistics measuring earnings and wealth, gay rights – equalisation of age of consent, ending military ban, civil partnerships, adoption rules etc etc. These are not small fry. Remember that when the Daily Mail is telling you how to think.
Trying walking down the street smoking a cigarette in California. There is loads of examples like this in the nation of the so called free. Just because the rhetoric fits doesn’t mean it is true. There is a difference between paternalism (a nanny state if you prefer) and authoritarianism. Nannys are actually a pretty good thing for children.
”’Longrider replies: During the past eight years we have seen our liberties eroded at an unprecedented rate. This is ”fact” not a libertarian rant. To complain about the previous Thatcher years is a straw man. It is this government that is interfering in our private lives where it has no business. It is this government that is abusing the anti-terrorism legislation to stifle free speech. It is this government that is pushing though the appalling religious hatred bill that again stifles free speech. It is this government that brought in an act of parliament to prevent one man from waging his perfectly legitimate campaign of peaceful protest. I could go on, but the more I thing about these fascists, the more angry I become.”’
”’Yes, we once were the freest nation in the world – but that was the nineteen sixties. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance – and constantly keeping tabs on the nasty little authoritarians currently in government is something I fully intend to do”’
”’Please, don’t accuse me of reading the Daily Mail – I don’t need that fascist little rag to tell me how to think. Remember, I was once a member of the party – ”that’s” why I am so disgusted at this betrayal.”’
”’As for you final comment on nannys – I am an adult, not a child.”’