News (Media Awareness Project) - UK: A Free Country |
Title: | UK: A Free Country |
Published On: | 2002-07-10 |
Source: | Daily Telegraph (UK) |
Fetched On: | 2008-01-23 00:14:44 |
A FREE COUNTRY
'IT'S a free country" is an old expression, but is it true? You won't find
a democratic politician who says straight out that he is against freedom,
but it is almost equally hard to find one who actually stands up for it in
practice.
Whichever party is in power itches to make new laws that curtail our
liberties. The Left will be keener to control, say, guns, the Right to
control, say, drugs, but all parties share the desire to control.
It is time to take a stand against this desire. The Daily Telegraph does
not support the doctrinaire libertarian argument which states that freedom
is the only good. Clearly, all states have a need for order, and the price
of one person's freedom can be too high for somebody else. But we do
believe that there should always be a presumption in favour of freedom.
The burden should not be on people to prove why they should be allowed to
do something, but on the authorities to prove why they shouldn't. Thus, why
shouldn't people be free to hunt, or smoke cannabis, or build an extension
to their house, or travel without an identity card, or read pornography on
the internet, or adopt children? There may be reasons to prevent any or all
of these things, but the restrictors should be the ones who have to make
their case.
Earlier this week, Parliament solemnly debated whether there should be a
law to prevent people having messy gardens: no one said that it was none of
their business. There should also be a presumption that the authorities
should stop taking more power over people and should start handing power
back. Why should trial by jury be curtailed, or the assets of people
suspected of profiting from crime be seized, or the Customs and Excise have
the power to enter your house? Why should the police be able to subject
drivers to random breath tests, or to spy on the public through CCTV, or
the Government keep information on you that it shares across departments,
or tell you whom to employ, or intercept your electronic communications?
The cant phrase always used to justify the restriction of freedom is "The
innocent have nothing to fear". It is almost always untrue. The innocent
suffer unfairly from every intrusion and restriction; indeed, their
innocence is no longer presumed.
Today, The Daily Telegraph starts its "A Free Country" campaign. Week by
week, and in major individual investigations, we shall examine how freedom
is being taken away, whether by Westminster or Whitehall or Brussels or any
other authority. We shall try to annoy the control freaks, whether they are
Right, Left or Centre, and we shall welcome allies for freedom from all
quarters. The Conservative leadership contestants hardly breathe a word
about freedom. The Labour Government's Queen's Speech is a shopping list of
attacks on our liberties. There's plenty to do. Libertad o muerte!
'IT'S a free country" is an old expression, but is it true? You won't find
a democratic politician who says straight out that he is against freedom,
but it is almost equally hard to find one who actually stands up for it in
practice.
Whichever party is in power itches to make new laws that curtail our
liberties. The Left will be keener to control, say, guns, the Right to
control, say, drugs, but all parties share the desire to control.
It is time to take a stand against this desire. The Daily Telegraph does
not support the doctrinaire libertarian argument which states that freedom
is the only good. Clearly, all states have a need for order, and the price
of one person's freedom can be too high for somebody else. But we do
believe that there should always be a presumption in favour of freedom.
The burden should not be on people to prove why they should be allowed to
do something, but on the authorities to prove why they shouldn't. Thus, why
shouldn't people be free to hunt, or smoke cannabis, or build an extension
to their house, or travel without an identity card, or read pornography on
the internet, or adopt children? There may be reasons to prevent any or all
of these things, but the restrictors should be the ones who have to make
their case.
Earlier this week, Parliament solemnly debated whether there should be a
law to prevent people having messy gardens: no one said that it was none of
their business. There should also be a presumption that the authorities
should stop taking more power over people and should start handing power
back. Why should trial by jury be curtailed, or the assets of people
suspected of profiting from crime be seized, or the Customs and Excise have
the power to enter your house? Why should the police be able to subject
drivers to random breath tests, or to spy on the public through CCTV, or
the Government keep information on you that it shares across departments,
or tell you whom to employ, or intercept your electronic communications?
The cant phrase always used to justify the restriction of freedom is "The
innocent have nothing to fear". It is almost always untrue. The innocent
suffer unfairly from every intrusion and restriction; indeed, their
innocence is no longer presumed.
Today, The Daily Telegraph starts its "A Free Country" campaign. Week by
week, and in major individual investigations, we shall examine how freedom
is being taken away, whether by Westminster or Whitehall or Brussels or any
other authority. We shall try to annoy the control freaks, whether they are
Right, Left or Centre, and we shall welcome allies for freedom from all
quarters. The Conservative leadership contestants hardly breathe a word
about freedom. The Labour Government's Queen's Speech is a shopping list of
attacks on our liberties. There's plenty to do. Libertad o muerte!
Member Comments |
No member comments available...