New at Reason
Brendan O'Neill looks at Tony Blair's legacy and sees Mary Poppins on steroids (note: steroids are bad for you—don't use them).
Comments to "New at Reason":
I don't even *like* Blair, but isn't the Hitler moustache a bit much (even if the moustache is in the form of a UPC code)? Where's that Godwin guy when you need him?
Mad Max | May 17, 2007, 12:37pm | #
OK, maybe the moustache is legitimate commentary:"Other local authorities prefer the “Manilow method” [of dealing with unruly youths]: they publicly play easy listening music, including Barry Manilow, in an effort to force youth to return home."
Not even the fascists were *that* sadistic.
steveintheknow | May 17, 2007, 12:40pm | #
Personal I find myself to be most calm and sociable whilst listening to a spot of Air Supply, or Michael Bolton.Good article. But it leaves one thing unsaid: The government could not be doing all of this if most Brits were against it. So the question is not so much, what happened to the Britsh government? The question is, what happened to the Britsh soul?
Dan T. | May 17, 2007, 1:33pm | #
England must not be too bad if Brendan O'Neill still freely chooses to live there.His complaints seem rather petty - who cares if he's annoyed by anti-smoking posters?
mdconn_uk | May 17, 2007, 1:33pm | #
A very good article, but it only brushes the surface of Blair's legacy.1. On ASBOs as well as the fact that these orders can be issued on the preponderance of evidence, including hearsay, a breach of the order can result in up to 5 years imprisonment.
2. We need police permission before we can demonstrate anywhere within 1 mile of parliament square (this includes the houses of parliament and 10 Downing St). If permission is given it can come with a series of conditions (e.g. duration of demo, number of demonstrators), any breach of which can result in imprisonment for up to 51 weeks.
I could go on ... and on.
For a whole website on civil rights in the UK go to http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/index.shtml
The problem we have in the UK is that even though we're the country of John Stuart Mills and Thomas Paine we have no written constitution. Instead we rely on what politicians ofter call our "unwitten constitution", i.e tradition, which isn't worth the paper it's written on.
Our new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, is supposedly in favour of a constitution however it remains to be seen what form this will take and whether it will be like the rejected European constitution which contained a number of exceptions in the cases of national security. Guess who gets to define that?
Sorry for the rant.
Wow, I had no idea things had gotten that bad over there. Very good article.
Rhywun | May 17, 2007, 2:15pm | #
His complaints seem rather petty - who cares if he's annoyed by anti-smoking posters?Dan, I hope you don't have any annoying habits that might come under Big Brother's radar some day.
Rhywun | May 17, 2007, 2:23pm | #
England must not be too bad if Brendan O'Neill still freely chooses to live there.I suppose when Americans raise concerns over Iraq you advise them to immigrate somewhere else?
Rhywun | May 17, 2007, 2:31pm | #
Goddamn it. Sucked in by his trollery twice in a row. Shame on me.Pro Libertate | May 17, 2007, 2:50pm | #
Rhywun,Be glad it wasn't the Urkobold. Then you would've been sucked into a trollularity, from which there is no escape. Once you hit the insult horizon, it's all over.
spur | May 17, 2007, 3:34pm | #
Mr. O'Neill is the kinda Marxist I can endorse.**I believe Spiked-Online is the reincarnation of the magazine 'Living Marxism' which was put out of business by the UK's dumb libel laws.
The sad thing is the Tories have enbraced the nannystate attitude under the leadership of Cameron. What does it say about the UK that the only real philisophical opposition to the nanny-state comes from Marxists and a couple old Torie op-ed writers.
The Real Bill | May 17, 2007, 6:37pm | #
The UK is just traveling down the well-worn road of all fallen empires. This should be no surprise to anyone familiar with history.That's not entirely true, Spur - the (slightly pinkish) Lib-Dems have consistently opposed Labour's creeping violations of civil liberties. Moreover, they're a legitimate third party (ie, not the LP), which puts the UK one up on the US.
Andy | May 19, 2007, 7:28am | #
You forgot to mention "free speech zones" which were intorduced by Blair to keep protesters away from parliament.The terrorists might as well give up in trying to take our freedoms, Blairs already done it for them.
GMF | May 19, 2007, 12:25pm | #
Blair is my candidate for the title of Worst PM Ever (at least for UK).Brendan O'Neill doesn't mention the bizarre ID card system that is being implemented. I was astounded to
read just how far reaching the ID card proposals are for UK citizens (if you can call them citizens after their
rights have been eliminated). Besides the totally unnecessary ID card - supposedly to prevent terrorism - all
terrorists cards will be stamped "TERRORIST" just so everyone will know. They back that up with a
surveillance system that is breathtaking in its totality - every financial transaction over a limit, purchases of
medication (so we can check on what meds the terrorists are getting), 50 categories of information tracked
by government databases tied into your ID. Just what all this information is for is not specified but I'm sure
the govt will put it to good use... (Check out wikipedia and NO2ID.net).
The Americans like to refer to their country as the Home of the Free - so what is the UK - Home of the
Fascist???
LarryA | May 19, 2007, 5:56pm | #
These schemes are part of the government’s drive against “anti-social behaviour.”The other unmentioned element is just how well this is working. I.e. that Britain has in two decades gone from the country where bobbies didn't need guns to being one of the most violently crime-ridden industrialized nations in the world.
Jeff Fillmore | May 19, 2007, 6:39pm | #
Being an Amerikan, I thought our government was bad. This artical would never be printed here. They wouldn't want us to know how bad things are for you. The artical scared the soul from my body. I am sorry for you.George | May 24, 2007, 3:52am | #
CCTV, speed cameras, "black box" to track your car, Child database to record what mum feeds you, smoke police, snitch lines, Talking CCTV, behaviour recognition cameras, phone tapping, e-mail and text intercepted, ID cards, DNA database, 11 year olds to be fingerprinted, biometric identified passports, detainment without charge, internet use monitored, traffic wardens with head mounted cameras.And now the might, maybe, could be, possibly, perhaps, I think there’s a chance police reporting people who might commit a crime sometime in the future. Rubbish bins with microchips to monitor waste. “Smart” gas and electric meters to spy on household energy usage. Freedom of information to be restricted and abolished for politicians.
How many thousands of new laws in 10 years? A Brave New World indeed. Huxley and Orwell have a lot to answer for. Stop the bus I want to get off.
E Gold | May 25, 2007, 9:49am | #
I have not proof-read this post. Please forgive the grammar and other mistakes.This article raises important and thought-provoking matters. However, whilst one can be broadly sympathetic with the article, the part relating to anti-social behavioural orders is incorrect for the following reasons:
1. Written decrees which tell individuals how they must behave
The author states that an ASBO is a written decree which tells individuals how they must behave. In fact, an ASBO is an Order of the Court which tells an individual how they must not behave. A person subject to an Order can do anything as long as it is not in breach of one of the prescribed conditions. An Order can contain only negative prohibitions. It cannot contain a positive obligation: Crime and Disorder Act 1998, s1(4) and 1(6); R (Lonergan) v Crown Court at Lewes (2005) 2 All ER 362.
2. Without having to prove in a court of law that the individual is guilty of anything
The applicant has to prove in a court of law that the individual has acted in an anti-social manner. That is to say, in a manner that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household as himself: Crime and Disorder Act 1998, s1(a). These terms do not have the light meanings of everyday use. Legal terms in statutes and cases carry greater degrees of meaning, weight, and requirement.
Although the proceedings are civil, not criminal, the court must apply in relation to this test the criminal standard of proof. The applicant must prove that the respondent has acted in such a manner beyond all reasonable doubt: R (McCann v Crown Court at Manchester) [2002] UKHL 39.
3. A local authority can issue an ASBO forbidding an individual from walking down a certain street, using bad language in public or even wearing a certain item of clothing, without having to prove in a court of law that the individual is guilty of anything.
An asbo can only be made by an Order of the Court. It cannot be issued by a local authority. A court may order an asbo only if such an order is ‘necessary’: Crime and Disorder Act 1988 s1(b). The test of legal necessity is a well argued and understood legal term which reflects a degree of weight.
Further, the prohibited act must be an act preparatory to a criminal offence rather than the offence itself. In addition, each prohibition itself must be necessary: Therefore, it would be inappropriate for a condition to be not to spray graffiti – the final act. It would be more appropriate for the order to prohibit the carrying a paint-spray can in a particular area, marked on a map. This would only be necessary if it could be proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the respondent continually created graffiti with spray-cans in a specific area. The order not to carry a spray can would have to be limited to the area in which the person was spraying graffiti.
An order must be specifically worded so as to be tailor-made for the individual respondent. It must be relevant to the committed offences or behaviour. Orders must not be drafted too widely or with insufficient clarity. Each prohibition must be necessary: R v Dean Boness [2005] EWCA Crim 2395.
4. ASBOs are like feudal rulings: they are dished out on the whim of local officials.
An asbo can only be made by an Order of the Court. They cannot be dished out by a local official, or any official.
5. ASBOs are like feudal rulings: they are dished out on the whim of local officials and on the basis of hearsay rather than hard evidence of misdemeanour.
The fact that some of the evidence is hearsay without the possibility of cross-examination does not have the automatic result that the proceedings are unfair. The court will have to consider what weight to give to the hearsay evidence.
The Court of Appeal has stated that the high standard of proof is difficult to meet if the entirety of the case, or the majority of it, is based upon hearsay evidence: M v DPP [2007] EWHC 1032 (Admin).
Hearsay evidence is admissible by Civil Evidence Act 1995. Section 4(1) states that, “in estimating the weight (if any) to be given to hearsay evidence in civil proceedings the court shall have regard to any circumstances from which any inference can reasonably be drawn as to the reliability or otherwise of the evidence.” The High Court has emphasised that the use of the words “if any” shows that some hearsay evidence may be given no weight at all: R (on the application of Cleary) v Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court (2007) 1 All ER 270.
In order for an ASBO to be ordered by a court, the applicant must provide beyond all reasonable doubt (the criminal standard of proof) that the respondent has behaved in an anti-social manner. The applicant can rely on hearsay evidence. However, the Court of Appeal has stated that it does not expect a court to find that the criminal standard has been reached by relying solely on hearsay evidence. The Civil Evidence Act itself makes clear that courts should consider what weight, if any at all, attaches to hearsay material. In Cleary, the Court of Appeal again restated that courts should consider attaching no weight at all to such material, in accordance with the words of the statute.
6. They’re a shocking affront to liberty and to the rule of law.
An asbo is very similar to a civil injunction even though the difference are important. First, the injunction is supposed to protect the world at large, in a given geographical area, rather than an individual. Second, breach of an asbo is a criminal offence to be tried in a criminal court applying the criminal standard of beyond all reasonable doubt. A power of committal to prison is available for breach of a civil injunction but a court is unlikely to exercise that power.
A subject of an anti-social behaviour where it does not follow a criminal conviction has an automatic right of appeal against both the making of the order and its terms to a higher court. There is also the availability of a judicial review.
An order certainly is a restriction to liberty. It is not correct to say that it is an affront to the rule of law.