In the United Kingdom the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000† empowers "Relevant Public Authorities" of the State to monitor, intercept and examine telecommunications, including e-mails.
The exercise of these powers[1] is at the discretion of the Home Secretary and is not subject to independent judicial review. "Oversight" is provided by the Office of Surveillance Commissioners – the Commissioners are appointed by, and exclusively responsible to, the Home Secretary.[2]
† A revealing title and a barefaced example of Orwellian 'Newspeak'. By a strange coincidence, the works of George Orwell are no longer (2005) included in the "set" books for English schoolchildren!
The United Kingdom is not yet a Police State, but is closer to becoming one than ever in it's history. Prime Minister Tony Blair may have done more than any man alive, or dead, to realize the fictional totalitarian world of Eric Blair (George Orwell: 1984). He leads a government whose sustained and stealthy assault on individual rights and the rule of law has eroded centuries of protections. Yet, even so, he sees his work as unfinished, his "legacy" as unassured:
I don't want to live in a police state, or a Big Brother society or put any of our essential [my italics] liberties in jeopardy. But because our idea of liberty is not keeping pace with change in reality, those freedoms are in jeopardy.
Anthony Blair: Labour Party Conference, October 2006.
This is unadulterated sophistry: what can he have meant by "essential liberties"? Are there inessential liberties? Only a stranger to philosophy (excepting 'post-modernism'… but then I repeat myself) could proclaim "our idea of liberty is not keeping pace with change in reality." Is the "idea" of Liberty outmoded and thus amenable to modernization? No, our freedoms are indeed in jeopardy, but the threat is not from conceptual retardation. As the Prime Minister's stream of specious initiatives reflects, reality is ever-changing: yet the primary threat to freedom remains constant – it is government.[3]
The pursuit of truth has never been a high priorty for governments, yet many reports have exposed the pervasive untruthfulness of the present government. Its rampant political lying, blatant and subtle, and cynical "burying of bad news" [that is, hiding the truth] are all well documented†. Its subversion of the rule of law in the soi-disant "public interest"‡ remains to be demonstated. Such systematic mendacity augments the threat to our liberties—.
The really frightening thing about totalitarianism is not that it commits 'atrocities' but that it attacks the concept of objective truth…
George Orwell
And what of the political opposition? Mute on the insidious erosion of civil liberties but ever acute to the lure of tradition (even a discredited one, if it's clung to by enough voters), the Conservative Party have 'discovered' Social Justice*… the Liberal Democrats are liberal in name alone, openly yearning for a more extensive State, the rest are incoherent. But there is cause for hope, Civil Liberty groups endure and the British press are increasingly alert to these threats: sometimes this even displaces their obsession with the antics of harlots and varlets.
† Peter Osborne: The Rise of Political Lying. [ISBN 0-7432-7560-8, 2005]
‡ BAe (a British defence company) is alleged to have paid millions in bribes to secure valuable defence contracts. See: The Guardian: BAe files.
On the directions of the Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, a Serious Fraud Office inquiry was dropped on "public interest" grounds in December 2006, allegedly in response to covert threats from the Saudi government that it would sever diplomatic and intelligence ties with Britain if the investigation continued.
* Friedrich von Hayek: Law, Legislation and Liberty: Volume 2. The Mirage of Social Justice. [ISBN 0415098688, 1976]
For more on the political philosophy of individual rights see; Robert Nozick: Anarchy, State and Utopia [ISBN 0-631-19780-X, 1974]
Times change…
Note 2Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police. Unlike the countries of the European continent, the state did not require its citizens to perform military service. An Englishman could enlist, if he chose, in the regular army, the navy, or the territorials. He could also ignore, if he chose, the demands of national defence. Substantial householders were occasionally called on for jury service. Otherwise, only those helped the state who wished to do so… …broadly speaking, the state acted only to help those who could not help themselves. It left the adult citizen alone.
A.J.P. Taylor: English History 1914-1945. [ISBN 0 14 02.1181 0. Oxford, 1965]
Return to [note 1]
US citizens will find nothing strange in this: the 4th Amendment to The Constitution has already been set aside by the USA Patriot Act of 2001, which provides a legal capacity for the operator of a communication host and any law enforcement agency to monitor any communication.
United States Constitution: Amendment IV – Search and seizureThe right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Return to [note 2]
It least Americans have a Constitution to wreak, the liberties of benighted British subjects hang by a thread (see: Note 3).
Note 3This is a democracy and we're all equal before the law. If they don't trust us, why should we trust them? P.J. O'Rourke: Give War a Chance.
What trust should be had in the New Labour government? In 2006 a Coup d'etat on Parliament was attempted by the Executive. Emboldened by their successful erosion of many of our civil liberties, the Government proposed an "Abolition of Parliament Bill" (or the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill). If enacted†, this would have given unfettered power‡ to the Executive.
But is this not mere exaggeration, a crude simplification? How does a Minister of the Crown having discretionary powers to:
grab you? Without the frail restrictions proposed in the Bill, the powers to "modify the functions conferred on any person by legislation" and to amend or abolish "any rule of law" would have been fatal blows to British freedom under law. The independence of the Judiciary and the process of judicial review would then be at the discretion of a Minister.
At least, in this, the government shows no hypocrisy – nor any shame: even the brutal tyrants of 20th century totalitarian regimes were not so brazen as to openly promote the abolition of the "rule of law".
The nature of this government is exposed by this infamous tract:—
A Bill To
Enable provision to be made for the purpose of reforming legislation and… to make provision about the exercise of regulatory functions… and for connected purposes.
Part 1 Power to reform legislation etc
Order-making power
1 Purpose
A Minister of the Crown may by order make provision for either or both of the following purposes —
(a) reforming legislation;
(b) implementing recommendations of any one or more of the United Kingdom Law Commissions, with or without changes.
In this Part "legislation" means a provision of —
(a) any public general Act or local Act, or
(b) any Order in Council, order, rules, regulations, scheme, warrant, byelaw or other subordinate instrument made under a public general Act or local Act,
but does not include any instrument which is, or is made under, Northern Ireland legislation.
In this Part "the United Kingdom Law Commissions" means —
(a) the Law Commission;
(b) the Scottish Law Commission; and
(c) the Northern Ireland Law Commission.
2 Provision
Provision under subsection (1) may amend, repeal or replace legislation in any way that an Act might, and in particular may amend, repeal or replace legislation so as to —
(a) confer functions on any person (including functions of legislating or functions relating to the charging of fees);
(b) modify the functions conferred on any person by legislation;
(c) transfer, or provide for the transfer or delegation of, the functions conferred on any person by legislation.
This is subject to sections 4 to 7.
An order under section 1 may for the purpose specified in subsection (1)(b) of that section also make —
(a) provision amending or abolishing any rule of law;
(b) provision codifying rules of law.
Bill 111 54/1 Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill Part 1 – Power to reform legislation etc.
House of Commons: Session 2005–06
† The Bill was defeated in Parliament. This encouraging sign that many MPs were not yet comatose, sadly, seems not to be the start a trend — since then they have voted to exempt themselves from the Freedom of Information Act!
‡ Ss. 3–7 of the Bill set out Preconditions and Restrictions on the exercise of these powers. But, in the absence of a Constitution, how enduring or entrenched they would have proved remains unknown.
Return to [note 3]It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once.
David Hume
The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.
The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedience, and by parts.
Edmund Burke
There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.
James Madison
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.
Benjamin Franklin
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
William Pitt the younger
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
The people are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.
Thomas Jefferson
A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves.
Bertrand de Jouvenal
Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.
Louis Dembitz Brandeis
Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. For this reason justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others. … Being first virtues of human activities, truth and justice are uncompromising.
John Rawls. A Theory of Justice
There is no social entity with a good that undergoes some sacrifice for its own good. There are only individual people, different individual people, with their own individual lives. Using one of these people for the benefit of others, uses him and benefits the others. Nothing more.
Robert Nozick. Anarchy, State and Utopia
Government always means coercion and compulsion and is by necessity the opposite of liberty.
Freedom is indivisible. As soon as one starts to restrict it, one enters upon a decline on which it is difficult to stop.
Ludwig von Mises. Human Action
It is vain to fight totalitarianism by adopting totalitarian methods. Freedom can only be won by men unconditionally committed to the principles of freedom. The first requisite for a better social order is the return to unrestricted freedom of thought and speech.
Ludwig von Mises. Omnipotent Government
… the increasing power of the machine of the state constitutes the utmost danger for personal freedom, and… therefore we must keep on fighting the machine.
Karl Popper
For in a republic, who is "the Country"? Is it the Government which is for the moment in the saddle? Why, the Government is merely a servant - merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
Mark Twain. The Papers of the Adams Family
The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities, that makes it seem inconceivable that other ways are viable, that removes the sense that there is an outside.
Allan Bloom. The Closing of the American Mind
In the reign of divine Augustus men's words were not yet hazardous to them, though they could cause them difficulties. Seneca. De beneficiis … Disobedience… is man's original virtue. Oscar Wilde (Attributed) Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it, misdiagnosing it, and then misapplying the wrong remedies. Groucho Marx A politician is anyone who asks individuals to surrender part of their liberty - their power and privilege - to the State, Masses, Mankind, Planet Earth, or whatever. This state, those masses, that mankind, and the planet will then be run by ... politicians. P.J. O'Rourke I believe there's something out there watching over us. Unfortunately, it's the government. Woody Allen