A bill touted as rolling back such bad law should really be called the Restoration of Freedoms Bill, 2011.
A bill named “Protection of Freedoms” does not specify who’s freedoms. The very word “protection” is a failure. Freedoms should be defended by deterrence based on a visible, real, imminent threat of retribution and the political will to follow through with that retribution should those freedoms be transgressed.
Protection just tries to shield Freedoms, but in the term there is no concept of deterrence, nor of response. Armour alone is not enough.
Considering the content, however, calling it the Restoration of Freedoms Bill would have been misleading.
We have some changes to DNA storage, a welcome erasure of past consensual sex charges on homosexuals, curbs on RIPA use and some puff about CCTV.
These are just bones, a few favourite squeaky toys to chew on as a distraction.
The Protection of Freedoms Bill already determines the scope of what should and should not be addressed.
A real Bill for freedom would be used to uphold basic, axiomatic concepts by testing, in particular, those passed in the last 30 or so years for their fitness and adherence to Rule of Law and enable the mass repeal of those laws that fail to meet the required standard.
To defend freedom is to deal with those who would seek to impinge upon others. That is the prime duty of the State, should it exist, and the UK State does not or chooses not to know.
1 comments:
The Fabian always justifies his oppressive world view by the 'protection of the public' as opposed to upholding the freedom of the Individual.
Classic Utilitarianism at the expense of Classic Liberalism
Post a Comment