Liberal Vision

Easter – No Time to Turn the Other Cheek

Yesterday I discovered that one of my favorite books, “The Unbearable Lightness of Being” by the Czech dissident Milan Kundera, had been released on DVD. Today I decided to stroll into Ealing to buy a copy to watch this evening, but when I got to HMV it was closed. I was a lttle bemused at first and then I realised that it was because it was Easter Sunday and ALL the shops were closed.

Now I have been the first to jump to support of freedom of religion in the past, despite the many illiberal acts that originate in the church, but the issue of shop closures on Easter Sunday has got me thinking that maybe its time to no longer ‘turn the other cheek’ when it comes to freedom of religion.

We need to be honest about the illiberal actions of the church. The church supported the ‘Keep Sunday Special’ campaign which would have closed shops every Sunday if it had been successful. I wonder if the electorate appreciate that Liberals took centre stage in pushing this through against the wishes of the churches.

One of the reasons for the churches wanting the shops closed on Sunday is so that people will go to church rather than go shopping. Now the Sunday before Christmas is the ‘High Festival’ of Mammon, but we would rightly oppose the Churches being forced to closed on that day to help the economy.

Time and again the church has been liberal on things that matter to it such as freedom to display religious icons and illiberal on anything that is ‘against the book’ such as civil partnerships.

Since we are liberal on everything we end up supporting the church in some cases.

When we support freedom of religion we need to realise that that it is the source of the limitation of freedoms, and I believe that we need a more nuanced approach to freedom of religion.

What we need to realise when we campaign on an issue such as Easter Sunday Shopping is that we get a double effect. As well as effecting the liberalisation of Sunday Trading we draw away activists from the opposition to liberalised drinking laws which is also has a strong religous element. I believe therefore that we should, where possible, focus our efforts into liberalising laws which the church opposes – such as lifestyle freedom.

On the other hand if we focus on liberalising international trade we may well find ourselves on the same side as some religious groups, so maybe we could leave that to them giving support in name only ?

There are many Christians who do not want to force their beliefs on others, a significant proportion in our Social Liberal Wing, and we should reach out to them, but we need to isolate and tie down the religious fundamentalists who move from one illiberal campaign to the next.

So this Easter lets not ‘turn the other cheek’ lets shift our approach to deal with this issue.

Carry on, minister ?

SPOT THE DIFFERENCE ?

Ms Flint (the then Minister for housing) exposed a secret ministerial briefing document about the weakness of the housing market that caused panic across the property sector in May 2008.

Mr Quick (Britain’s anti-terrorism chief) exposed a secret briefing document on Operation Pathway resulting in the premature arrest of alleged members of a suspected al-Qaeda cell in April 2009.

The difference is that the policeman quit having been told he had lost the confidence of M15 and the Home Secretary. The Minister stayed in place until October 2008 before being given the job of Minister for Europe.

Double Standards or what?

Did Guardian photographer of Tomlinson assault risk ten years in prison?

Here’s a worrying thought, following the announcement of an IPCC enquiry into the death of Ian Tomlinson.

Was the American investment fund manager who took the footage potentially committing a crime himself?

In February of this year, s76 of the Counter Terrorism Act came into force. It permits the arrest of anyone found “eliciting, publishing or communicating information” relating to members of the armed forces, intelligence services and police officers, which is “likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism”.

At the time, the BBC reported that anyone taking a photograph of a police officer could be deemed to have committed a criminal offence.

Whilst a New York banker might sound like an unlikely candidate to be an al-Qaeda terrorist suspect, the police were clearly signalling in advance of the protests that they were considering the use of anti-terrorist measures.

Fortunately – for the sake of a full and proper inquiry into possible manslaughter – no police officer ripped the video camera from the New York banker’s hands. And, surely, it is inconceivable that any jury would have convicted him.

But given this latest mammoth embarrassment to the police – in which their first public statements on the incidents surrounding Mr. Tomlinson’s death have now been shown to be untruths – expect s76 powers to be used more widely in future. Not to protect anyone from terrorists, but rather to shield the police from proper public scrutiny.

Why the Tory hesitation over Ian Tomlinson’s death?

Three cheers for David Howarth, the LibDem justice spokesman, for demanding a criminal inquiry into Ian Tomlinson’s death following the release of footage by The Guardian.

The short clip clearly shows Mr. Tomlinson being aggressively pushed to the ground by a police officer. Of course, it is impossible to understand the possible rationale or motivation for the riot police’s behaviour (that’s why we need an inquiry, right?).

But where are the Tories on this issue?

If Her Majesty’s Opposition really are “liberal” Conservatives as their leader insists, you’d expect them to be all over this issue like a rash.

No doubt, Chris Grayling and Dominic Grieve will decide what they think about the matter soon – but the fact that the LibDems have beaten them to the punch again does call into question whether the Tories will ever discover a liberal-inclined soul.

UPDATE: As of 6pm on Wenesday April 8th (more than twelve hours sicne the story started dominating the headlines), the Conervative Party’s latest news section on their website STILL doesn’t include a statement on the death of Ian Tomlinson.

Girls Scream Aloud – Would you want your wife or servants to read it ?

For the first time in a while a case of obscenity over the written word is being prosecuted. Past humilations of the prosecuters of the freedom of the written word have made prosecutions very hard in the UK. Its time we made the freedom of the written word, except in the case of incitement to violence, absolute.

In the latest case a piece, clearly obscene but no more than many other literary works, has been published on the internet as a work of fiction and it looks like the prosecution may succeed – but its a dangerous path.

There is a very important issue here. There are many works of literature that are more extreme than this piece, for example the Torture Garden by Octave Mirbeau. If we are to ban this piece on the grounds of its obscenity then we must ban all pieces of work which are more extreme that this. Prosecuting this on the grounds that it is obscene is unhelpful because it will draw in other work and restrict a basic freedom that had been taken for granted.

I happen to be a big fan of Girls Aloud and I regret that this piece might have caused offence to them, but I was grateful for the statement from their management, reported as follows.

“Although the pop stars are being more cautious, they have vowed not to let it affect their commitments – a source in the Daily Star says We won’t give this person the satisfaction that the girls care. They have security with them all the time, they are safe enough ?”

If there is a stalking issue then clearly this needs prosecution, but this is not the case here.

It has always been artists who have been at the forefront of the case of artistic freedom, and very few people in the music, film or literary business wants anyone to go to jail for artistic freedom.

Girls Aloud could help the cause of artistic freedom and freedom of the internet if they would come out with an explicit statement saying that ‘they don’t care’. I am sure that the legions of their fans who by and large value highly the freedom of the internet would be forever indebted.