Civil Liberties

I see Neu Labour apologist Neil Harding is traffic whoring again.

“Curtailment of liberties can sometimes be a good thing. For example curtailing the liberty of drivers to drive as fast as they like, is of benefit to everyone. The liberties of pedestrians, cyclists and even other road users to enhanced safety and less environmental degradation outweighs the liberty of drivers to do as they please. Therefore some liberties are not automatically a good thing. There is always a balance to be had.”

Well, I guess I agree with the balance thing. However, the point he – and government seem to consistently miss is that this is a common law democracy. Under such a system, unless something is specifically outlawed, it is permissible. Therefore, those of us who value liberty are under no obligation to justify or quantify it. It is anything that statue does not specifically prohibit. It is beholden on those who wish to remove them to make their case and justify the prohibition.

Since 1997, we have seen liberties eroded “for our own good” in a number of areas. There’s the hysterical “speed kills” nonsense that Neil repeats on this posting. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again; speed does not kill. People who drive without due consideration for the circumstances kill. Speed may or may not be a factor. Want to improve road safety? Well, more cameras and road furniture with ever restrictive speed limits won’t do it. What about encouraging all road users to adopt some risk awareness and management for themselves? Research in the Netherlands and more recently in Wiltshire has shown that removing road furniture and its consequential distraction improves the behaviour of drivers who now have to think for themselves. Unfortunately, thinking for ourselves is an anathema to the supporters of the nanny state.

Shortly after coming to power, the newly elected fascist government decided to bow to pressure from the media and bring about a ban on handguns. Unfortunately, the reality is that had John Major won, he would have caved in likewise. And didn’t that make matters better?

“A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.

The research, commissioned by the Countryside Alliance’s Campaign for Shooting, has concluded that existing laws are targeting legitimate users of firearms rather than criminals.”

All those sporting types have to go to Switzerland to practice while the gangstas just carry on as before. How many legally held weapons were actually responsible for murders? Dunblane and Hungerford were rare exceptions – exceptions that were manageable under the existing control measures. But, no, reason and logic were not to prevail. Far better to bow to the demands of the baying mob than apply rational analysis to the matter.

Moving on, I could get into a rant about draconian anti-terror laws and the arrests of perfectly innocent people who are exercising their right of legal protest. I could mention the removal of the right to legally protest outside parliament. I could mention the Civil Contingencies act that makes Hitler’s enabling act of 1933 look like a walk in the park. I could, but by now you get the picture.

Our civil liberties are neatly enshrined in the principles of the Universal declaration of human rights. They are curtailed only by the need to ensure that we do not affect the rights of others (article 29.2).

“In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.”

Therefore, unless specifically illegal – it is my right to do as I please and I have no reason to justify myself. So, in answer to Neil’s question – My civil liberties are to do exactly as I wish providing I hurt no one else.