Tom Harris – Another Strawman

Tom Harris writes in defence of Jack Straw. He, like other labour MPs defends the government’s legacy on liberty. He, like other Labour MPs believes that black is white, up is down and slavery is freedom. And, like other members of the supercilious righteous political elite, regards those who disagree with his opinion as green ink tinfoil hatters. Here, then, are some gems from the keyboard of this example of the kind – some say, one of the better ones. If that is so, then the rest must be beyond dreadful:

I didn’t even have to read more than three or four of the responses in the comments thread to be able to recite the litany of grievance: RIPA, ID cards, CCTV, no protest without authorisation within a mile of parliament, etc.

So we’ll just dismiss them – never mind that those concerns may be valid.

But Jack’s argument needed to be made, and the strength of feeling against his case doesn’t detract from the truth that Labour’s record on civil liberties is a good one.

Anyone who genuinely believes this is delusional. Labour has brought about over 3,000 new offences. Reducing individual liberty does not protect or increase liberty. If I have five apples and you take away three of them, I have two apples, not six or the original five.

He cites the Human Rights Act, which is just as well, because none of our opponents ever does. Left-wing critics ignore it while right-wingers whinge about it and want it abolished altogether.

Ah, yes, the HRA. Frankly, it is counter productive and isn’t particularly helpful to this debate. Passing the HRA does not alter the fact that Labour has brought about the Protection from Harassment Act (1997), the Crime and Disorder Act (1998), the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000), the Terrorism Act (2000), the Criminal Justice and Police Act (2001), the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act (2001), the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Extension Act (2002), the Criminal Justice Act (2003), the Extradition Act (2003), the Anti-Social Behaviour Act (2003), the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act (2004), the Civil Contingencies Act (2004), the Prevention of Terrorism Act (2005), the Inquiries Act (2005), the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (2005) Identity Cards Act (2006), and pending legislation such as the the Coroners and Justice Bill, and the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill.

Then there’s the Freedom of Information Act, which is only grudgingly acknowledged by our detractors as a significant achievement.

Again, not especially helpful and again, it doesn’t alter the fact that there is a wealth of bad legislation on the statute book. Simply trying to divert attention to the couple of supposedly good things they might have done is nothing more than a logical fallacy – but, then, I have come to expect this from the righteous. They don’t actually engage with the substantive points being made; rather they try to divert and confuse.

But surely the fundamental point to make is that virtually none of those who blog about our alleged decent into a police state has experienced any perceptible diminution in their own personal freedoms. Libertarians screech hysterically across the blogscape about it with all the relevance of those blokes who wear those “The end is nigh” sandwich boards.

Again, never mind the substantive facts, let’s just shout a few insults. Yes, I know, we all do that from time to time, but at least try to engage with the points – Harris doesn’t even try. Personally, I am regularly asked to demonstrate who I am when previously I was not. A minor inconvenience, you might say – but, who I am is irrelevant to the transactions being conveyed; and in the case of a withdrawal at my bank not so long ago, they had seen me call in regularly to make deposits and knew precisely who I was, yet we still went through the farce of “photo ID please – just in case of money laundering”. I am fortunate in that I have not been stopped and searched, for example, but that is not the point, is it? The point is that the police have the power to arbitrarily stop and search me for no good reason whatsoever – all they have to do is cite “terrorism” and away they go. That, frankly, is a gross infringement on my liberty and I deeply resent it. Every member of the public subjected to this humiliating experience is a small victory for those who would terrorise us and the political elite are so far up their own arses they either cannot or will not acknowledge it. Being patronised by a smug, self-righteous MP such as Harris merely rubs salt into an open wound. And, I might add, for all the thousands of searches carried out, not one has uncovered a terrorist – but common sense told us to expect that anyway.

Who, exactly, has suffered unjustified intrusion into their private life through local council monitoring of their emails? Who has been prevented from discretely pursuing their day-to-day business because of the presence of CCTV cameras? Even the extension of detention without charge to 28 days has not resulted in the legions of innocents behind bars which were predicted by the likes of Liberty.

Irrelevant. The point is; the government has granted itself the powers to do so. That they might not be using all those powers is neither here nor there. So this is simply another diversion; another logical fallacy.

Whatever the alleged misuse of anti-terrorist legislation, no responsible government could do anything but respond in legislative terms to the threat from islamist terrorism (and usually when a politician says something along those lines, they are met with the response: “The islamist threat is no worse than the threat we faced from the IRA.” Just because those who repeat such nonsense actually believe it does not make it any less nonsense).

And Harris repeating his nonsense does not make it any the less nonsense. The IRA managed to kill and injure far more people on the UK mainland than Islamists have managed. So far, jihadists have shown themselves to be incompetent amateurs in comparison. The response should be proportionate. It has not been. And, although I’ve said it before, I’ll repeat it; I’ll take my chances with them sooner than live in a “papers please” society.

So isn’t it odd that when the subject of civil liberties in this country arises, the self-appointed guardians of our liberties (and thanks, by the way…) almost never voice a word of criticism of those who planned and supported the 7/7 attacks, reserving their most trenchant criticism instead for the efforts of our democratically-elected leaders to try to prevent further tragedies?

I’ve been trying desperately not to swear here, but this asinine statement brings me close. My thoughts on the July bombers is irrelevant (pretty much like every argument this jackanape puts forward) – my condemnation should be taken as read. Am I supposed to preface every argument with a statement condemning the July bombers just so that the less intelligent among us get the message?

Preventing further tragedies is best done through conventional policing, targeted investigation and prosecution of offenders. It is not done by treating us all as suspects.

And who knew that photographing police officers was such a popular pastime?

He doesn’t give up, does he? The point – as always, the point being missed – is that it should not be illegal. It may be that a police officer is breaking the law, so photography captures the evidence. Although, we shouldn’t need to justify ourselves to our servants.

But why is it that this subject ignites the blogscape while in the non-virtual world so few people seem to be concerned? I know I’ve received the odd letter of concern from constituents on the subject, but probably fewer than five in the last eight years, and none in the last year.

Probably because they have discovered, like me, that it is a waste of effort. Communication with one’s MP is a bit like talking to the plants in one’s garden. There is the illusion that something is happening, but illusion is all it is. In most cases, all you will get back is a smug reply along the lines of “public safety” or some such fatuous nonsense before the MP in question ignores everything you have said and trots though the “aye” lobby. That is why. Indeed, my cacti are rather more forthcoming than the average MP when it comes to lucid and rational argument. And I’m sure my Rebutia could put together a better justification than Harris has – maybe he would like to hire them? I’m sure we could reach a mutually agreeable fee.

The argument put forward by Harris demonstrates conclusively the calibre of oaf we have elected into our legislature. God help us. “Our liberties are safe with Labour,” says Harris; Jesus, should I laugh or cry?