Home page Media and civil liberties - Part 2 In Part 1 of this article we reviewed many of the signs that there is a drift towards a form of state socialism, corporate statism or facism, as measured by a steady reduction in the ways and means of the people of this country to defend their individual freedom, a claim which the now deposed Charles Clarke had rejected. Henry Porter When Charles Clarke gave the speech giving rise to our article, he talked about what he claimed were media exaggerations on this issue. He singled out Henry Porter for particular attention. He attacked point by point what Henry, the Editor of Vanitity Fair 1, had written in an article. This approach by a Home Secretary to single out a specific journalist by name is very unusual and it says something, very negative and troubling, about the government's mindset. Henry has now published an article which sets out arguments as to why he feels that civil liberties are being rolled back. His evidence is compelling and one might add, he makes his points with an easily read prose. The article, "Blair laid bare: the article which may get you arrested" appears in Vanity Fair and in the Independent, and it is well worth reading. This article reviews legislation and includes the views of people directly involved in campaigns or advocacy related to so-called civil liberties, policy making and politicians. As a result, the article demonstrates convincingly that there is a growing awareness and concern with an absolute destruction of individual freedom in Britain; this has become a serious issue for many. Henry's positions therefore, far from Charles Clarke's attempt to paint his writing as irresponsible journalism, serves to demonstrate, more precisely, a propensity to govern through intimidation and the placing of party above the people. Henry refers to Churchill's long standing understanding of the importance of individual freedom. However, there is a danger that an impression be given that it is Tony Blair and his government who are solely responsible for creating the conditions and the action which are battening down individual freedom. If this were so the solution is simply for people to wake up and elect a different party at the next election so as to undo all this damage. Hector McNeill According to Hector McNeill of Emancipation, "Part of the reason the Labour party escapes much criticism for its excesses is because the manipulations in governance are controlled within the party machines. There is a perculiar cliquishness and mutual admiration between fellow MPs as being of high rank within the respective political party establishments; indepedendents are not indulged in this way." Hector says that, "British political parties can not be trusted to undo all the damage Tony and his personal brand of dictatorship has done. The signs are all there. This is why politicians temper their criticisms of the unhealthy interference in governance by party aperatiks, at least publicly. One day they hope to gain the same ability to manipulate. The issue is not to rock the party boat. This bunch of fellow travellers are now more intent on this hidden collaboration. This is because political parties are now insignificant, weak in terms of mission, philosophically threadbare and they all lack any coherent articulation. Their insignificance is absolute in participatory terms, having a collective membership of less than 1% of the electorate. They neither appeal nor inspire. Yet they remain unashamedly bent on power; this beast is the main threat to the freedom of the people of Britain." "The party of over, but the political parties steadfastly refuse to face up to this reality; they are in deep denial. Most of the public have not yet recognised the reality in these terms. The damage is wrought as a result of the party-centric designed governance whereby insignificant factions (political parties with less than 1% of the electorate's support) can lever themselves into a position of power, with less than 25% of electorate support, to impose legislation and regulations against the will of the majority. Tony did not create this system, it has been in making for centuries. But he has helped expose its extreme fragility in terms of an extraordinary inability to defend inividual freedoms in practice. Any individual politician with the right combination of extreme self and party-serving instincts can manipulate affairs in a morally repugnant and ethically unsound way." "The Labour party now busies itself with "After Tony", in a shameless bid for continued power in spite of the chaos of governance carried out in their name. The Labour party is a text book case of why political parties are dangerous. By the end of the 1980s the Labour party had become void any intellectual foundation and Tony grew in stature in the vacuum sustained by aperatiks. He faced no serious opposition. Being blindly bent on power Tony was their prime resource for gaining and sustaining power; he was their 'main electoral asset'. "People with such myopic priorities are not going to become overly concerend with the detail of that process, the jettisoning of individual freedoms during the last decade are just details of knee-jerk reactions to events, all part of the process of staying in power. It is just collateral damage, par for the course when a political party is bent on imposing it's will on people." "The greatest danger to Britain is that adequate funding and slick campaigns can end up electing people worse than Tony and New Labour. In Europe, Facism essentially came out of the blue, came to power through legitimate democratic electoral process, and within two years was established as the New way. It then rapidly proceeded to cut back the individual freedoms of the population including removing trial by jury." "In Britain we already have had ample demonstrations of governments, including those under other parties, ruling through law as opposed to enabling the rule of law. New Labour is one of the worst examples of this. There is a need to acknowledge the failure, inadequacy and irrelavance of parties, all parties. There is a need to reject approaches to Parliamentary reform which place the survival of political parties as their central concern. Today political parties have no monopoly on any single good idea; they are not dealing with the rabble. A significant proportion of the electorate, far exceeding the 1% who are members of political parties, are far better experienced, qualified and informed about options than the majority of politicians. Britain needs politicians who are free in thought and action, free from intimidation from party whips intent on forcing them to act at odds with the interests of the majority of their constituency." "Solutions to this problem include electing independents, making the whip illegal, separating government from a free voting Parliament, strengthen and increasing the role of juries to prevent arbitrary impositions. In short, promote the free participation of the population in electing a free assembly to reflect their will. Abandoning political parties is part of the act of liberation required by the people of Britain to begin to reclain their individual and collective freedom through a freer and more responsive representation." 1 Vantity Fair is an independent publication and with no connection nor affiliation with the Agence Presse Européenne Group.