Britain takes a flying leap into the deep end?

[tyme]

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1664712,00.html
(written by Tony Blair)

In advance of the publication of new proposals on anti-social behaviour and organised crime, we will once again, as a government, be under attack for eroding essential civil liberties. It is right to set this argument within a more coherent intellectual and political framework. It is not just about tough versus soft but about whose civil liberties come first.

[...whining about the ineffectiveness of the justice system...]

The choice was stark; either we accepted that nothing could be done, that we would allow the rights of victims routinely to be trampled on, or we granted new powers to local authorities and the police. This was, and is, the rationale for all the so-called summary powers that we have introduced.

These powers have a strong philosophical justification, from within the Labour tradition. Social democratic thought was always the application of morality to political philosophy. One of the basic insights of the left, one of its distinguishing features, is to caution against too excessive an individualism. People must live together and one of the basic tasks of government is to facilitate this living together, to ensure that the many can live without fear of the few.

It would be more honest to write, "One of the basic desires of the left is to erase from society the notion of individualism." The only individualism that liberals consider not excessive is abstract artistic novelty and individual decadence, which they fawn over as if it makes them superior and immune from the evils of the world. I consider that sort of individualism fake; it's creativity, not individualism.

That was why it was important that rights were coupled once again with responsibilities. As Tawney once put it: 'what we have been witnessing ... is the breakdown of society on the basis of rights divorced from obligations'.*

[...more blathering...]

But this is not a debate between those who value liberty and those who do not. It is an argument about the types of liberties that need to be protected given the changing nature of the crimes that violate them. And it is an attempt to protect the most fundamental liberty of all - freedom from harm by others.

I'm not too familiar with British political theory, but if in their socialist fantasy island Britons believe they have a guaranteed right to be free from harm, they are fools.

Critics of our response need to face the following question squarely. If the criminal justice system was failing people, as it clearly was, what ought to be done about it? To do nothing is one option. But surely it is to do better by the British people to devise relevant powers, limited by the right of appeal, to ensure that communities do not have to live with unacceptable levels of fear and intimidation. The basic liberties of the law-abiding citizen should come first.

"Liberties of the law-abiding citizens should come first?" Someone needs to tell the esteemed PM that not everyone accused is guilty. Whose rights does he think procedural safeguards are in place to protect? Criminals? Those who are never accused?

This scares me. It reads like an essay by someone who's way out of his league, so brainwashed by a political ideology that he's unable to understand, and thus unable to refute, any criticism of his plan. If this is the best he can do, Britain is in a bad way. I suppose the same could be said about some of the psychopathic loons roaming the halls of the Capitol, but at least we have a written Constitution here that protects us somewhat against them.

*Blair used the same quote in a speech in 2001. Evidently he thinks being unoriginal is a positive character trait.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/election2001/story/0,9029,498758,00.html

 

[Rebar]

so brainwashed by a political ideology that he's unable to understand, and thus unable to refute, any criticism of his plan.

Sounds like the entire democratic party here, except that they don't even have a plan.

It would be more honest to write, "One of the basic desires of the left is to erase from society the notion of individualism." The only individualism that liberals consider not excessive is abstract artistic novelty and individual decadence, which they fawn over as if it makes them superior and immune from the evils of the world.

+1 to that. The big evil we face today, is this very idea of leftism.

 

[Bog]

British people are "Subjects" not "Citizens".

It gets truer every single day. No wonder I drink too much.

 

[culcune]

I remember hearing about the huge problem with joyriding in the UK. The perpetrators were being chased by the police, and if they crashed and were injured or killed (as was inevitable), it was the police's fault for chasing them. Personally, I think it was Ford Motor's fault because the majority of cars stolen were Ford vehicles, and they made them too easy to steal. It was to be expected....lol

 

[rallyhound]

I think that the fault lies with the dealer who sold the car in the first place.
He must have known that the car was likely to be stolen and used in a crime.