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”
morbidfascination
It is not “cast” as the enemy of freedom, that is how it is acting.
blingmun
The sad thing about several of the comments here is that people seem to attach importance to the particular motivations of Cameron or the Tories. Who cares what they think in the context of democracy and freedom?
The nasty Tories happen to be the government of the day but the whole point about press freedom is that an even more unsavoury government could take power at some time in the future. Even if you hate the likes of Murdoch and Dacre at least they can in principle oppose the political class. If we bring the press under the legal jurisdiction of politicians – if all we do is set the precedent in a small way – the tendency will be for future governments to extend their grip. Whenever the tabloids or a blogger or a tweeter oversteps the mark – and someone will, you can be sure of that – the usual useful idiots will cry out for more regulation and in no time political correctness will extend to paying due respect to holders of public office.
The freedom to offend and upset is the very essence of freedom of speech. We jeopardise it at our peril.
blingmun
“What I want is press that actually prints the truth”
Jonathan Middleton will decide whether or not any given article is expressing the truth.
Jonathan Middleton
No I will not that it is a complete distortion of what I said I was referring to the printing of articles like this
http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/07/01/daily-mails-attempt-to-blame-teachers-for-girls-death-backfires/
blingmun
Once we set the precedent of politicians regulating the press it is precisely examples like the one you have provided that will be used by future politicians to further limit press freedom. And people like you complaining about the latest outrage in the Daily Mail/Murdoch press will even make it a vote winner. Stop being a useful idiot.