|
FREEDOM.
Return to Opinions Menu
The “London DailyTelegraph” in 2001 commenced a series of articles describing how the freedoms that were a British birthright were no longer valid because of legislative changes and social engineering sponsored by the E.U. and U.N. .
Among the first among many articles on the same subject, was one written by Charles Moore and submitted 16/02/2001.
Reviewed by David Hughes-Jones
Moore describes how the freedoms and liberties that British people have had for generations has been eroded by legislation introduced by political parties of both “left” and “right”
Much the same situation now exists in Australia.Both political parties are guilty of ignoring the basic freedoms that stemmed from our Constitution paying more attention to United Nations edicts than taking notice of the feelings of ordinary citizens.
Under the title of “A FREE COUNTRY?” Moore relates that it is an old expression, but questions whether this can be said today. He admits that one 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.
In his opinion 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 and its about time that people shook off their apathy and took a stand against this desire.
He does not support the doctrinaire libertarian argument which states that “freedom is the only good.” realising that all states have a need for order, and “the price of one person's freedom can be too high for somebody else”. But he insists that there should always be a presumption in favour of freedom. He points out that;-
“....... 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.”
He mentions the British Parliament solemnly debated in 2001 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 phrase"The innocent have nothing to fear" invariably used to justify the restriction of personal freedom is so often found out later to be untrue.
Moore concludes that”... innocent citizens suffer from every intrusion and restriction; indeed, their innocence is no longer presumed. “
top
|
