Sunday, February 26, 2006

Blair on Liberty? He has no idea

Tony Blair has written up his beliefs on Liberty in today's Observer. I want to give it a good going over, and may do so later, but am busy. In the meantime, Charlie at Perfect is on the case:
The prime minister also seems to believe that liberty is a zero-sum game: you can’t have more of it, you can only shift it around. In his view, it’s all about achieving the right ‘balance’. His rhetoric is, likewise, ‘balanced’, although - in this case - bizarre
Go read, both. If anyone else want's to point out the many obvious flaws in Tired Tony's arguments then feel free to go ahead, I'll try to add links in to any others that appear.

Update: This, by Longrider:
No, it is not, you dissembling poltroon. Organised crime has always been ugly - unless Al Capone was pretty? Or, closer to home, the east end gangs such as the Krays, were sweet boys really? Modernity is not an excuse to sweep away our freedoms - only a charlatan would believe it so. There is nothing new here that was not here before.
Update 2: D-Notice (who happens to be a lawyer by trade) here:
He doesn’t mention the Government and other public bodies cannot be stopped from using laws that breach the HRA and that if a law is declared to be “incompatible” with the HRA then it’s up to Parliament to decide whether to amend the law; if so, good; if not, tough!
Update 3: Blairwatch:
IRA terrorism was different in nature and scale... there was a hell of a lot more of it. No muslim group has set off as many bombs as the IRA did, or killed as many people as the Loyalists did. But Tony's trying to change the subject. Notice how he says it's not about civil liberties but about modernity. Utter guff.
Update 4: Garry at Curious Hamster:
What's possibly more worrying is that, while I'm almost certain that Blair doesn't realise it, there are distinct facist undertones here. The state will guarantee your liberty to live your life in the way that the state demands. For the good of the nation.

Blair isn't a facist. He is, I suspect, ignorant as to exactly what facism is. He certainly doesn't understand that a government official with unrestricted power poses a greater danger to our society than a disaffected youth in a hoodie or a terrorist.
That'll be me last update; any more, see comments, etc; if anyone's interested, more will likely pop up in the Bloglines Citations. Update 5: I lied, so sue me. Tim and Tim have more, both rather good, so worth a look as well.

Technorati tags: , , ,

9 comments:

Katy Newton said...

Longrider has posted on this too.

Bob Piper said...

Errm, am I expected to be impressed that D-Notice is a lawyer? Could someone perhaps tell me what Blair's profession was? You can be a lawyer and a prat... as they both prove.

MatGB said...

I have no idea what impresses you Bob, so no, you're not meant to be impressed. However, I am of the opinion that a little gravitas is added to an argument; I am merely a humble blogger, he is a blogger who happens to be a lawyer.

When discussing the lies of a lawyer like Blair, the opposed opinion is useful, n'est ce pas?

Go on, what's your opinion of Blair's inconsistent mess?

D-Notice said...

From Mr Piper's comments, it appears that he's trying to start a flame-war with me. I won't rise up/lower myself to it...

MatGB said...

That appears to be Bob's commenting style; he's not trolling, just, well, disagreeable? I forgot what word he actually used.

Tristan said...

The fascist undertones:
This is entirely consistent with the hypothesis that the centralisation of power that took place in Germany over many decades ultimately led to Nazism.

Authoritarianism does not necessarily start out with the wish to dominate people and the authoritarians of the past have been very good at deluding themselves.

Bob Piper said...

D-Notice, sorry if you were offended, it was a trifle rude, particularly as I'm afraid I hadn't even read your blog. My comment was really about MatGb's post which appeared to give your opinions legitimacy 'because you were a lawyer'. All I was pointing out that Blair was trained in the law, and MatGB doesn't say... 'and Tony Blair who is a lawyer' to give his views added respectability. Some fine, fine people have been lawyers, Fidel Castro and Nelson Mandela to name but two. Honestly, no fight, I was not being personal (well, only a bit).

I am though, according to the Conservative Leader of Walsall council, the 'most obnoxious person he has ever met in his entire life'. It makes me proud. I feel I have a reputation to defend.

D-Notice said...

Dear Bob

Fair enough!

Tim Neale said...

Thanks for the link, I think there must have been a glitch when you tried to set up the Link, cos I do not know how you got to that page try this for the post or this for the index.

I was thinking of creating a metta-deconstruction of all the points raised by all the bloggers. Between us we must have caught every counter-argument. Shame is no-one would read it.

It is the power of the government communications machine that is winning these arguments rather than the power of the arguments themselves.

The classic quote is the "these arguments can be easily debunked" at the head of the piece, but then makes no effort to debunk them. It would be interesting to see how many people who read (scanned?) the article think that he debunked the arguments lower down.