Among a large part of the population, ‘Labour’ still means ‘authoritarian’. Over Leveson, it has once again revealed its authoritarian streak.
Padraig Reidy is senior writer at Index on Censorship
Among a large part of the population, ‘Labour’ still means ‘authoritarian’. CCTV, ID card schemes, all the way to the various legal battles over terror suspects and secrecy.
In 2010, in the run up to the general election, I attended a panel discussion hosted by Privacy International. Nick Clegg made much of the authoritarian streak in Labour policies, even offering a Littlejohnish “you-couldn’t-make-it-up!” as he told the assembled digital activists how Labour had even made up a law banning people from detonating atomic devices (for the record, this sounded like an eminently sensible move to me).
Labour were powerless to fight the ZaNu Liarbore narrative, and the election was duly lost.
Step forward to now, and we’re constantly being told that new Labour is nothing like New Labour. Mark Seddon wrote in the Guardian last week of how this was “not the party that went to war in Iraq.” Those bad old days of control freakery and conspiracy are over, replaced by a new spirit of discussion.
All very nice, but Labour’s behaviour over the recent Leveson negotiations has carried the exact same hallmark of scheming and authoritarianism that was supposed to have been left behind.
The attachment of Lord Puttnam’s Leveson amendments to the Defamation Bill was a disgrace. Let there be no equivocation about this.
Here was a bill which had been built by consensus, with popular support. A bill that could go a little way to making this country a little freer. It wasn’t perfect, but it was an improvement.
Lord Puttnam chose to sabotage it. On Twitter on Friday evening, Chris Bryant was telling people that the defamation bill would pass without amendment if Labour got what it wants on Leveson. It is a tawdry political move.
Meanwhile, Labour’s insistence on statutory underpinning for the post-Leveson press regulator revealed that the authoritarian streak is alive and well. Is there a problem? Only another law can sort it out. A new Quango for the people. The party knows best.
All this in spite of the fact that many journalists are already facing prosecution for hacking and other breaches. We have laws for this sort of thing, so what exactly is this new law for?
Labour could have been brave: they could have pointed out that the focus after Leveson is almost entirely on the press, while politicians get off free. They could have said that here we have an issue on a principle of free press, and discussion about principal is not helped by emotive campaigning.
They could at the very least have signalled some interest in free speech by allowing the Defamation bill it had committed to continue on its path unmolested.
The Labour party chose to do none of these things, and in doing so has once again allowed itself to be cast as an enemy of freedom.
152 Responses to “Leveson: Labour has allowed itself to be cast as the enemy of freedom”
twidili dee
The most biased and unaccountable news outlet is the BBC. The most terrible falsehood perpetrated in modern Britain is the WMD story. The most dangerous secrets are those kept by the political class. (Hillsborough etc). Sort these out first and then maybe talk about newspapers, if there are any left.
twidili dee
Confusion between freedom to print and ownership of outlets. It is the first that is important. Who would you trust to “control it”-the people who gave you the Iraq War? Because they will be the people setting things up for you.
twidili dee
Some rich guys own newspapers. They do not control press freedom, only govt. does that. As pointed out the hacking scandal has led to numerous arrests-so many in fact that it looks sinister. New Labour is authoritarian, that’s a matter of record. Incidentally what does Leveson know that makes him qualified to make recommendations about the press? His own profession is very problematical.
Jonathan Middleton
You are aware that many have been arrested for crimes such as bribing the police, hacking phones et cetera. Allowing people like Murdoch to own so much of the press has lead to distortion and abuse of power which for the good of democracy must be curbed
blarg1987
Two things that are of interest:
1 – Things like phone hscking where meant to be in the public interest, however in all the years they did not report Jimmy Saville, now the BBC executives are being punished for this rightly, however I do not see executives of other media outlets also being prosecuted as they claim they all “heard the rumours”.
2 – Perhaps when the media chase people on oublic interest stories on the ground of being in the “public interest” perhaps these same journalists should also have the same treatment as I feel it is in the public intersts to know if these same journalists are also avoiding tax put on several extra pounds etc.
I wonder then will stories be less sensational and more factually accurate so that we as consumers can know what is right.
I am favour of freedom of speech, I am not in favour of people lying in public to make money or sell stories and claim it is in the public interest.