The title of the piece is pretty much a winner from the start, establishing, as it does, Toni's omnipotence (and thus summing up the silly man's worldview).
I don't destroy liberties, I protect them
See the rampant narcissism in the title? Delicious.
There is a charge, crafted by parts of the right wing and now taken up by parts of the left, that New Labour is authoritarian, in particular, that I am.
So, you admit that the entire political spectrum is united in thinking that you are a fascist sucker of Satan's cock? A brave move indeed, Prime Minister.
We are intent on savaging British liberties, locking up those who dissent and we abhor parliamentary or other accountability.
Yup, that's pretty much the substance of the allegations. I would also add that we think that you are a liar, an incompetant and probably a mendacious little shit as well.
The reason right wingers are keen on this is clear. New Labour has eschewed traditional forms of leftist statism.
No, you haven't. NuLabour's policies are all about state control; they may well use some previously unthought of ways of achieving that control, but nevertheless, that is what it is. The Chancellor, for instance, acts precisely like a traditional tax-and-spend socialist fool.
NuLabour are a traditional socialist, statist Labour government; all that they have done is to paint a (very thin) veneer of conservatism onto the facade in order to make them electable. That veneer is mainly personified as Tony Blair.
This is the only reason that Princess Toni is still in charge: because, without him, NuLabour lose their acceptable-to-the-middle-classes veneer and become simply Old Labour. And the Labour Party are more wedded to power than principle.
So the type of claim they used to make about the Attlee or Wilson governments they can't plausibly make about us.
Well, I can, you self-obsessed bastard.
Have we become indifferent to liberty? At one level, the charge is easy to debunk.
On ye go, then. Is a debunking forthcoming?
But on another level, there is a serious debate about the nature of liberty in the modern world. I accept the good faith of our critics. I just believe them to be profoundly mistaken.
Ah, right; no debunking, then. No, I can already see that what Toni is going to do here is to shift the goalposts: he is going to debunk the allegations as relating to his definition of "liberty".
But first, the true record.
Brace yourself, chaps: here come the lies...
This government has introduced the Human Rights Act, so that, for the first time, a citizen can challenge the power of the state solely on the basis of an infringement of human rights...
I'm waiting for that test case, Toni. Oh, and are the people on those alleged torture rendition flights, that you haven't asked President Bush about, allowed to bring you to court under the Human Rights Act. Furthermore, as relates to that, let's have a look at Strange Stuff's recent Mill post on social rights, shall we?
John Stuart Mill does not have a very high regard to "social rights", and yes the scare quotes are in the original."A theory of "social rights," the like of which probably never before found its way into distinct language—being nothing short of this—that it is the absolute social right of every individual, that every other individual shall act in every respect exactly as he ought; that whosoever fails thereof in the smallest particular, violates my social right, and entitles me to demand from the legislature the removal of the grievance. So monstrous a principle is far more dangerous than any single interference with liberty; there is no violation of liberty which it would not justify; it acknowledges no right to any freedom whatever"
It is not for the government to grant us "human rights"; how would this be possible since the government works for us, the citizens who elected them. The only way in which the government can possibly grant "human rights" is if the government sees itself as being effectively above not only its citizens, but also of all humans. Since this demonstrably cannot be true, then the government is either deluding us, or itself. Or, of course, both.
... and the Freedom of Information Act, the most open thing any British government has done since the Reform Acts of the 1830s.
As regular readers of Private Eye will know, the FoI is merely window-dressing. Since any request can be effectively blocked, either on grounds of "commercial sensitivity" or because a minister decides that there may be "issues of national security", the FoI merely ensures that we see precisely what the government wishes us to see. The only difference is that there is the illusion of transparency and people-power, and thus imbues a new credibility to the figures that the government releases. Any time that you see any figures or studies that are reported to have "been released under the Freedom of Information Act", you should treat those figures with a double dose of salt.
And, of course, once the charges for requests come in we'll see the number of requests drop real fast. And, naturally, those requests that are still made will, effectively, constitute another indirect tax, thus making The Gobblin' King* extra-specially happy. Anyway, my hatred and contempt for our Cyclopean Chancellor leads me to digress...
We have devolved more power than any government since the 1707 Act of Union...
Yes, and it's been a fuck-up. Power was devolved to Labour heartlands in the anticipation of being able to keep control of those areas. The sop to the petty parochialism of our Celtic cousins has simply increased the demands for an "English Parliament" which will, naturally not happen; after all, lest we forget, Labour polled 800,000 fewer votes in England than the Tories.
The vast waste of money that is the Scottish Parliament building has been a long and drawn-out embarrassment, and the details of the incompetence of those involved in the contract has merely served to spotlight the lack of real-world experience of most civil servants.
Furthermore, like many other things—such as reform of the House of Lords—the project remains unfinished, with the West Lothian question continuing to be unresolved. Once more, of course, this is about power for, were the Scottish MPs unable to vote on English matters, Toni would never win a vote again.
... introduced transparency into political funding...
Well, up to a point, Lord Copper. The Register of Members' Interests seems to be ignored, at best, by many people—not least David Blunkett—and openly scorned by others (not least Toni himself, whose declaration of his freebies remains patchy at best).
... and restricted the Prime Minister's right to nominate to the House of Lords.
Well, whoopee do. That doesn't alter the fact that NuLabour enobled more people in their first 7 years of government than the Tories did from 1979 till they were toppled in 1997.
In other words, I have given away more prime ministerial power than any predecessor for more than 100 years.
Well, possibly. However, you have taken more on than any Prime Minister in history: the 12 point Terrorism Plan was announced whilst the Home Secretary was on holiday and originated from you. Your grandstanding on the Foreign Stage has emasculated the series of increasingly loathesome Foreign Secretaries, and your personal control of almost every policy proposal made by the government is evident in the irritating incompetence inherent in every one.
As for parliament, I have spent proportionately more time answering questions than any predecessor...
Well, that's not entirely true, is it? You have reduced the frequency of PMQs and, more importantly, insisted that all questions be tabled beforehand so that plausible answers—for which read "spin" and "excuses"—can be concocted before the televised "debate".
... given more statements...
None of which anyone believes.
... am the only PM ever to agree to appear before the select committee chairs...
Well, given your presidential style of involvement in government and, more importantly, the fact that you were personally responsible for the Kelly suicide, you didn't really have much choice. Besides, you lied to the committee anyway.
... the only one to give monthly press conferences.
Part of the sweetening deal with the press. The MSM do love being told what they are to report: it saves time and money which could be more profitably spent down the pub.
And I gave a vote specifically on whether to go to war.
Becuase the entire House threatened to revolt had you not. Furthermore, you and the egregious Campbell then conspired to lie, cheat and deceive the House in order to ensure that you won that vote, you fucking little prick.
What about the charge that ID cards and anti-terrorism legislation transgress basic liberties and are, as David Cameron put it, 'unBritish'?
Entirely valid, frankly.
Here, we must put a new case about liberty in the modern world.
Watch, watch, children! Watch while I shift those goalposts! Jesus, I hate you, you fuck.
I am from the generation that I would characterise, crudely, as hard on behaviour, but soft on lifestyle, i.e. I support tough measures on crime but am totally pro gay rights.
Until someone tells you otherwise, I assume. And, as with Harding, is there something about your sexual predilections that you'd like to confide in us? My father said that that lawyer who related that "everybody knows that Blair has a fancy-boy in the West End" was apparently awfully convincing...
Besides, if your stance on gay rights is, seriously, the only thing that you can hold up as being liberal, then you haven't got an awful lot to boast about really. I mean, compared to the ASBOs, the proposals to evict homeowners from their property and sent them to training camps, the idea of using satellites to check whether people have added conservatories, the imprisonment without trial of suspected terrorists, the proposals for house arrest orders, the Regulatory Reform Bill and the cock-sucking, boy-mess stained, bastard, fucking ID Cards giving gays the legal right to bum each other at 16—and let's face it, the age of consent laws are hardly strictly policed anyway—is not much to crow about, actually. You fucking knobber.
I believe in live and let live, except where your behaviour harms the freedom of others. A society with rules but without prejudices is how I might sum it up.
That's right, 'cos you're a pretty straight guy, huh? No, you see, what you meant is "where you beaviour harms others"; no "freedom" thank you. Who defines freedom anyway? So, shall we just stick to "harms others", thank you so much.
But the 'rules' are becoming harder to enforce. Antisocial behaviour isn't susceptible to normal court process.
Yes, it is. There were already plenty of laws governing anti-social behaviour; they just weren't enforced. You see, Toni, it doesn't matter how many new laws you introduce, because if you don't police them properly then they are just as useless as the existing laws. You are a lawyer, you should know this. On the other hand, you could talk to frontline bobbies rather than that knobhead namesake of yours. By the way, why has he still got a job? Is he sucking your nuts or what?
Modern organised crime is really ugly, with groups, often from overseas, frequently prepared to use horrific violence.
Blah, blah... Krays... balh... Biggs and the other train robbers... blah, blah... loved their mothers... blah... only killed their own... blah...
And, though I get into constant trouble for saying it, while I completely condemn IRA terrorism, I believe it was different in nature and scale from the new global Islamic terrorism we face.
The fact that you get into constant trouble for saying it might, just possibly, give you an inkling that you are wrong, you fucker. The IRA detonated bombs with alarming regularity, in London and Warrington, Armagh and Belfast. OK, so their main aim, on the mainland at least, was the destruction of property and the spread of fear and panic... Oh, hang on... For fuck's sake, Tonio, my little poppet, they managed to kill a lot of people (and now you've let the murderers into government).
For me, this is not an issue of liberty but of modernity.
Well, thank you so much, Toni, for this wonderful, modern world that you have bequeathed to us. Cheers, you cock-knocker.
If we fail to tackle ASB because the court system is inadequate, other people's liberties suffer. If we don't take head-on organised criminals or terrorists, others are harmed. The question is not one of individual liberty vs the state but of which approach best guarantees most liberty for the largest number of people.
Actually, Tone, it is precisely the question of individual liberty versus the state; that is exactly what we are all banging on about. Once more, you are dodging the question by redefining the question; we are none of us fooled, you twat. We can spot it a mile off. Now answer the question that we are asking, you fuck.
In theory, traditional court processes and attitudes to civil liberties could work. But the modern world is different from the world for which these court processes were designed.
Sorry, how? Has man undergone some fundamental evolutionery biological change? No. Do we have to legislate for burglars with three arms? No.
It is a world of vast migration, most of it beneficial but with dangerous threats. We have unparalleled prosperity, but also the break-up of traditional community and family ties and the emergence of behaviour that was rare 50 years ago.
Oh, fuck off. That has been happening ever since easy and cheap travel was invented. In the latter decades of the 1800s, something like 23 million emmigrants fucked off from these desolate shores to "the land of the free". This has been happening for over a century!
Actually, of course, we all know what has been causing this ASB that you keep banging on about. It is the Welfare State, that massive, monolithic edifice which you and your cocking Chancellor are doing so much to expand. It is the Welfare State that discourages forethought, and thus reduces man to the role of primitives, of beasts. If you socially engineer primitives, unworldly, pusillanimous, unthinking savages then you really cannot be surprised when they go about beating each other with clubs (or, of course, the ubiquitous iron bar).
God, you really are a massive penis.
Organised crime operates to incredible levels of sophistication.
Yup, and they will crack these not-very-incredible levels of security on your preventative measures. So we are all fucked.
Organisations that support terrorism take enormous care to avoid infringing the strict letter of the law.
I really cannot believe that we wouldn't be able to pin anything on them. I mean, seriously? They got Capone for tax fraud, you know. Come on, Tony, be creative.
Last August, I named Hizb ut-Tahrir as such an organisation. Within days, its website changed, putting out a very moderate message, and I was lambasted for trying to curb free speech. But this is an organisation which has been banned in Germany and Denmark: it is active on campuses where it promotes its extremist message.
Oh, well done, my Saviour. Will you now declare Gorgeous George such an organisation, because I'm fed up of his pontificating, especially on things such as how those cartoons were worse than 9/11 (seriously, can someone please have that man killed? He's becoming an embarrassment. Any Weegies out there feel so ashamed that they want to do him over with a hammer, at all?).
People should be prevented from glorifying terrorism. You can say it is a breach of the right to free speech but in the real world, people get hurt when organisations encourage hatred.
Uh, Tony? We... er... we already had laws against inciting violence. You could have had the loony of Finsbury Mosque under those laws years ago, if you'd wanted to. There is a world of difference between saying, "Feck me, the 'Rah are grand. Didja see that last bomb? What a feckin' foire that was. And that last knee-capping, feckin' magic" (you let them into government, Toni, you cunt) and saying "That 9/11 was a glorious deed. Go forth now, and do something not disimilar. And don't forget to buy you branded Finsbury Mosque rucksacks at the gift shop on your way out. Allah is great! Don't forget the nails!"
Y'see. One is glorifying terrorism (and probably about to have his face shot off by Loyalists) and the other is glorifying terrorism and also inciting violence. Do you see? Actually, given the whole Nick Griffin shebang, I imagine that you probably don't see the difference at all. Because you are a strategically-shaved monkey with the brain of a 3-week old banana. You bastard cunt.
We expect similar objections when the Serious Organised Crime Agency starts fully on 1 April with extensive powers to make it difficult for criminals to do business. But without these powers, the agency and police face an uphill task.
To be honest, that's probably a good thing. Otherwise they get carried away and get the wrong guy. And hold him for... oh... 28 days without charge. If he's lucky.
On ID cards, there is a host of arguments, irrespective of security, why their time has come.
Yes... Oh, sorry, I thought that you were going to make some of those arguments, but you aren't, are you? Every argument that you and your merry men have made for ID Cards has been exploded; the argument that ID Cards will prevent terrorism was exploded by your own damn Home Secretary. They didn't stop terrorism in Spain, for fuck's sake! And not just that once, over a period of years: heard of ETA, have you?
As for the fraud stuff, what a load of cock. Firstly, the documents which you will use to gain an ID card will be easily forgeable. Secondly, the damn database just simply won't work because it's too fucking huge. Thirdly, the fucking retina-scanning technology won't work. I mean, finger-printing is fucking hundreds of years old, and we can't even get that right; been following that policewoman's case up here, have you? It's been causing something of a disturbance throughout the entire Scottish judicial system. You might want to get a briefing...
Most people already have a range of different cards, for workplace, bank or leisure.
Yes, Toni, but we choose to have those. Do you see? And also they don't have every detail of our fucking lives attached to them, you worthless, fucking knob. Can you see the fucking difference yet? Can you? Can you fucking see it, you fascist cunt?
And, contrary to what is said, it will not be an offence not to carry one.
Like Mr Eugenides, I just straight out don't believe this at all. After all, if that were the case, then what would be the fucking point of having them, eh? Think is, Tonio, we just don't believe a single, solitary syllable that passes your lips. This is, I think, mainly because you are a PROVEN CUNTING LIAR, YOU CUNTING CUNTWIPE.
Finally, back to politics. The worry some people have is that the Tories have joined with the Lib Dems and that we are therefore on the wrong side of the debate. I would answer: have confidence in our position.
Why? Everything you've touched, you have utterly arsed up. You couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery. Plus, your wife looks like the picture of Dorian Gray.
That last bit wasn't relevant. I just felt that I had to say it.
If I were the Tories, the one area where I would stick with a traditional line is law and order. That they find themselves in a strange place explains why the Tories may ape the Lib Dems on this issue in parliament but talk tough to the electorate.
Or, just maybe, they feel that the ID Cards are utterly fucking wrong. Aaaaaaaaaaargh. You are such a CUNT.
Their attitude to liberty does indicate, though, a refusal to understand the modern world. If the nature of the threat changes, so should our policies. That is not destroying our liberties, but protecting them.
I fucking well despair, I really do. Please, go drown yourself in a shallow pool of Leo's piss. Or take an overdose of heroine. Or get Mark Oaten to bugger you to death. I don't mind, just do it soon; you are a total waste of matter and a drain on our oxygen. Please, go home and die.
Many people have pointed out that this article is a load of old shit, of course; thus, it was inevitable that the loony, Labour mouthpiece that is Neil Harding would leap to his bum-chum's defence, with a post entitled:
PM defends his record on civil liberties and so do I.
Unbelievable. The thing is, also, that Neil is utterly unable to drag himself away from party politics. I think that this may be because he has no imagination. He certainly has no judgement.
So the first thing to acknowledge is that, if new Labour are authoritarian, so too are the opposition parties.
Why is this relevant? My bogies taste better than anybody else's thus eating my bogies—despite the fact that they are formed from mucous, particulates, pollutants, bacteria, viruses and dirt and are, essentially, the outside dustbin of the body—is a good thing. What a knobber.
Voting against Labour because of their civil liberties record, would be like voting for the Tories (who support the Iraq War even more) to register disapproval of the War.
The Tories "support the Iraq War even more"? More than whom, Labour? Do they? The Tories, who, presumably, were presented with the same "sexed-up" dossier (or, as I like to call it, that massive report full of even bigger lies) as everybody else and therefore voted for the war because they believed that it was necessary, apparently still support the Iraq War even more than Tony and his team.
You heard it here first, folks.
The trouble with Neil is that every single word that he writes is like a party political broadcast on behalf of the NuLabour Party.
One of the main arguments used against this government by the obsessive absolutist libertarians who run Liberty Central, is that, it is not that this government is necessarily going to abuse these new powers, but that some future government might. The major flaw in this argument is of course that, if such a government did get power, the last thing we would have to worry about would be what was currently on the statute book, but what they would add to it.
Neil, my poppet, in case you hadn't realised, in my opinion this is that future government and they are already abusing their powers. I mean, as an example, first they "sexed-up" a dossier on Iraq's military capability, then they threaten the supposedly impartial BBC and trigger resignations left, right and centre, and then they admit that they might have spiced-up the intelligence but they are bollocksed if they are going to resign or apologise, and then they continue to hold the "impartial" broadcaster by the balls until such time as
Neil then, in a brilliant impression of His Master, dodges all the liberties questions and commences droning on about PR and FPTP. It's not very interesting, although he does manage to get his long word in there—"reactionary", as applied to all Tories, naturally—which I think is very nice. He is a pillock.
I diskard him.
However, he does like Our Glorious Leader very much, which is sweet. It is unknown whether or not Blair likes Neil, but I would imagine that the two of them would get on like a house on fire.
In fact, they could test out some of Tony's gay laws together.
And while they are doing that, we can set their house on fire...
UPDATE: The Reptile has a nice, concise post on this, making many of the same points that I have. Only less long-windedly and with fewer "cunts".
* Google on "gobblin king". Oh, and the "I'm feeling lucky!" search takes one straight to the Gobblin King's lair...