They want to see your anger

Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, 18 November 2004 00:24.

Censorious, over-regulatory, ban-happy, criminalising – that is the nature of Blairism and of our culturally-liberating government as it impacts upon the quiet lives of Middle England. If you hunt or if your hobby is shooting, if you own a house which you may wish to sell, if you own a horse or both a car and a mobile phone you will be regulated or you will be banned. If then you fail to comply you will be criminalised and have to pay a swingeing fine … or face jail.

The social customs and interests of all those respectable, responsible folk who abide by the law and intend no man harm are being steadily legislated away. It might not be programmatic. A case can be made for each of these new legal instruments and, yes, they arise through different causations, not simply political malignity. But the unavoidable overall picture is one of a government with extreme and well-targeted regulatory instincts ... a government with absolutely no inclination to maintain for its own sake our long-standing tradition of liberty.

At some point that has to and does connect to a set of profoundly malign political values.

Today’s Telegraph carries an article by Philip Johnston that catalogues the process well.

“The announcement yesterday that smoking in most public places is to be made an offence, presumably punishable by a fine, is the latest addition to a lengthening list of things that were once allowed but are now to be criminalised.

“When the current parliamentary session ends tomorrow, there will be several new offences. Under the Children Bill it will be a crime, punishable by up to five years in prison, to smack your own child if a visible mark is left as a result … Housing Billwill make it an offence to place your own home on the market without first spending £600 or more on a home information pack … Since 1997, it has been a criminal offence to possess any handgun, even a .22 calibre, for sporting purposes. An individual whose most aggressive instinct is to fire at a target can no longer do so in this country, even under licence … Since June, it has been illegal to own a horse, donkey or a Shetland pony without obtaining an ID card for the animal to ensure it does not poison anyone who eats it. In order to allow the country’s horse owners time to comply with this law, its full force will not be deployed until February. Failure to get the “passport’’ will mean a £5,000 fine or three months’ imprisonment, or both, on summary conviction. On indictment - in other words, if the “offence’’ is persistent - there is a two-year prison term …

“When Tony Blair came to power, it was lawful, if not advisable, to use a mobile phone to make or receive a call while driving. Now, it is an offence to use a handheld phone or similar device, with a fixed penalty of £30 or a fine of up to £1,000 if the “offender’’ takes the case to court and loses. This applies even if the car is not moving but if the engine is running … Even teenage “canoodling’’ is now criminalised under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which forbids under-16s from engaging in any sexual activity.

“From the beginning of this month, it has been an offence, punishable by a £5,000 fine or six months’ jail, to set off a firework after 11pm … Until now, at least it has not been an offence simply to exist; but the Identity Card Bill in next week’s Queen’s Speech will mean that, from 2007, everyone renewing a passport will be issued with a compulsory ID document and their details entered on a national register. Failure to obey will mean a £2,500 fine.”

Much bad and unsuccessful legislation is so narrowly focussed on partisan politics it takes no account of real life or human nature. So it has no possibility of effecting any sort of public gain.

By that standard, New Labour’s 1997anti-handgun legislation is a classic piece of work. When the Home Office brought it to the House the Shadow Home Office Spokesman, one Michael Howard, asked “Why is the Government so hell-bent on denying shooters the opportunity to enjoy their sport?” By pressing ahead with a total ban the Government was, he said, “demonstrating an arrogance and contempt for the rights of minorities”.

I can’t think of any approach that would have bothered the government benches less. It seems to rest on scattering the superstitious tribes-persons simply by pronouncing a Nu-Labour ju-ju word, minorities, over the chicken bones of the Bill. But Howard spoke the word without being a speaker of the tribe’s tongue. To the modern left the idea that people who can afford the price of firearms and a gun club membership are a minority in any sense is, frankly, a laugh.

Michael, Michael, I hope that by now you have worked out what this harrying of the hunter, the shooter, the householder, the car driver, the horse-owner is for … why they and their values are so cast down in the dirt.

You see, they - we - are the majority. We are to blame. In every thoughtless moment of our lives we exclude from our privileged world the real minorities – and, of course, the poor, the infirm, the disabled, the uneducated, the plain unlucky … To put a stop to all that, to engender freedom through inclusion – or equality - is the consuming passion of our political masters and all their kind. One has only to delve into the sincere but narrow and flawlessly unrealistic thinking of the Social Exclusion Unit to see what exercises these people.

Issues of liberty it ain’t. A deep satisfaction in seeing us wounded it might be

Tags: British Politics

Comments:

Posted by Geoff M. Beck on Thu, 18 Nov 2004 02:59 | #

These developments are simply monstrous.

Each day I become more disappointed with the nostrums of Democracy and Freedom.

Perhaps the search for an alternative to Democracy, aborted after WWII, must resume. If this Democracy can’t be reformed it must be fought as though it were cancer.

Charles I had his head removed for far less than this.

Even tyrants know limits, since their tenure is fragile they are unlikely to trample, too much, personal liberties - as long as those liberties don’t threaten their rule.

These attacks on the most innocent and everyday human decisions and choices is something no goverment ought to be allowed.

Posted by Phil on Thu, 18 Nov 2004 09:22 | #

Guessedworker,

You forgot to mention the “crime” of owning a TV without a licence.

“Even teenage “canoodling’’ is now criminalised under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which forbids under-16s from engaging in any sexual activity.”

Do these legislators live on another planet? They certainly seem to if they think this is going to work!

But on a serious note, I do think that some of these tendencies, always present no doubt in the body politic, have gone out of control under “Nu”-Labour.

I think the heart of the problem is simply the insecurity and fear of not being in “control” and believing that getting the government to become everyone’s nanny will solve all problems. Also, because we do not have a written Constitution, it is a lot easier for Parliament to simply legislate away ancient rights without getting noticed. A good example would be Guns. In America, with the second amendment in place, any legislation fiddling with Gun rights eventually leads to pitched political battles. Here, its a cakewalk.

But also, these developments are a consequence of the post-Industrial society we live in. Do most people nowadays have even the slightest inkling of “Liberty” (although “Equality” or its slightest perceived violation gets people riled up really fast)?

As long as they get their Lager, a bit of sex, TV and their “fu-bol”, no one really cares.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 18 Nov 2004 11:04 | #

Actually, guys, my first title for this piece was “The redistribution of venality.”

I had it in mind that the criminalising of (particularly) middle class life was balanced by and possibly even coordinated with the decriminalising of underclass venality thus:-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;sessionid=GMM5PM0RAJM55QFIQMGCM54AVCBQUJVC?xml=/news/2004/11/17/ncps17.xml&sSheet;=/portal/2004/11/17/ixportal.html
and thus:-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/07/04/npuff04.xml
and thus:-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;sessionid=A13IWZPOP45NJQFIQMGCNAGAVCBQUJVC?xml=/news/2003/01/07/nburg07.xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=50720
and thus:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/2077913.stm

There is a strange and worrying synchronism here. But I decided that the concept was too ambitious, for me at least, to really nail.

Later maybe.

Posted by Geoff M. Beck on Thu, 18 Nov 2004 15:36 | #

Phil:

There is a bill in Congress, that has the backing of many Republicans and Democrats, and perhaps the Whitehouse, that would bring MANDATORY psychological testing into the public schools and perhaps to homeschoolers too.

If a child is found ill he could be coerced into taking Ritalin and other drugs.

The public schools are an officially atheist institution. No doubt these bureaucrats view Christianity as an illness - though not Islam or Buddhism, for sure.

Or imagine you, as a parent, voted for the wrong party…

http://www.aapsonline.org/

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=\Commentary\archive\200410\COM20041020c.html

Posted by Phil on Thu, 18 Nov 2004 20:54 | #

Geoff,

This Ritalin business has been going on for so long that it boggles the mind. I have read about the use of Ritalin many times before although this legislation would be unprecedented (I think).

Fred Reed has some great stuff on this. See here:

http://www.fredoneverything.net/UniversalTherapy.shtml

http://www.fredoneverything.net/Feminization.shtml

I don’t think anyone realized what a monster they were creating when they let the Government into education. What you have now is a beast that is out of control.

But we can blame the bureaucrats only so much. As you say, this bill has bi-partisan support. Clearly, this wouldn’t be the case if there was massive public opposition to it.

Why isn’t there massive public opposition to this? Because most people now live in a world where safety and security are what really matter to them. They watch Oprah on TeeVee and they see all kinds of dysfunction, silly stories spiced up by the media and it scares the hell out of them. And if a mesure or law would make them feel a lot safer, they will be for it.

An American friend of mine who is a bit older once said to me about kids and Guns: “Guns are dangerous if kids get exposed to them? How is it that in the 1950s when kids regularly went on shoots with their Dads, they never sprayed a schoolyard with bullets?”.

Posted by Phil on Thu, 18 Nov 2004 20:59 | #

Guessedworker,

Regarding that third link, I find it absolutely astounding that even though every single leftist piety about Crime has been proved false in the 20th century, the pieties still refuse to go away. Amazing.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 19 Nov 2004 00:50 | #

“One has only to delve into the sincere but narrow and flawlessly unrealistic thinking of the Social Exclusion Unit to see what exercises these people.” (—from the log entry)

Hey I’m sure the sort of people who man the Social Exclusion Unit mean well. Who else would have the sheer decency to worry about the cruel fact that the “dominant hard-drinking bar culture” of some off-duty policemen excludes ... (wait for it) ... excludes (no one’ll guess this) ... teetotalers. Yes!

It excludes TEETOTALERS! That’s OUTRAGEOUS! These cops can’t be allowed to get away with this!

Posted by Svigor on Sat, 20 Nov 2004 00:42 | #

“But we can blame the bureaucrats only so much. As you say, this bill has bi-partisan support. Clearly, this wouldn’t be the case if there was massive public opposition to it.

For me, such analyses always return to the only place they can - the media. The media makes everything the establishment does possible. The media is the first estate, although they are far too saavy to admit to this.

The media is absolutely the keystone of the current dominant worldview and power structure.

Posted by Svigor on Sat, 20 Nov 2004 00:50 | #

To expand a bit:
I’ve devoted endless brain cycles to this and all the issues talked about here, and I’ve come to a fairly simple conclusion:
He who controls the information, controls the universe.

People spend endless hours wondering about how to return to Constitutional government here in America (or how we lost it in the first place), why people are such suckers for leftist ideology, how to fight globalism, how to create a third party in America, etc., ad infinitum, without ever seeming to grok this very simple axiom.

This is why I’m so excited about the Internet and why I think as it goes, so goes the future. Simply put, there IS NO system, or law, or ideology that can “save” us if there is no common IDEA to base it upon. We cannot return to Constitutional government in America because Americans as a people don’t even know what Constitutional government is, and by the same token we lost Constitutional government because we as a people lost the idea of Constitutional government.

People the world over are slaves to their information-givers, the media, and until this is addressed the media will call all the shots.

Posted by Geoff Beck on Sat, 20 Nov 2004 01:40 | #

Svigor,

The corporate controlled media content is opium, doubtless. As far as the internet is concerned I’m not sure how long the liberty we all enjoy will last.

The decentralization of the internet is both its weakness and strength.

You, I, and the the Majority Right’s readership remain hopelessly anonymous and atomized.

Best Wishes,

Geoff