February 17 2014

HAS FREEDOM TAKEN ANOTHER BLOW?

Last week's vote on whether or not to make it illegal to smoke in a car when a child is on board set me thinking about political philosophy and its relationship with freedom and liberty. Sorry if that sounds a bit profound but politics must have a philosophical base to build on. This could be heavy going but here goes....

There will be few among us who would disagree with the proposition that it is wrong to smoke in a confined space with anyone present let alone a child. It's also irresponsible to feed children an endless supply of junk food or to smoke when pregnant or a 1001 other things but are we going to make them all illegal?

What about smoking in your home when a child is present? Or is that seen as a step too far? How would it be policed?

How much should our lives be regulated by the State? In recent years as a society we have accepted more and more regulation and seemingly been happy to do so. The smoking ban was perhaps the most restrictive and yet it is one of those social changes that is unlikely to be reversed. That's not to say there isn't opposition; there always is and it's the job of the political process to balance the pros and cons and then decide.

At the root of Conservative thinking as always been the concepts of freedom and liberty. That's not to say 'anything goes' but that there should always be a presumption in favour of individual freedom rather than 'we know what's good for you and will impose our values on you.' By ‘we’ we mean the State.

Conservatives believe that it is from our relationship with other people rather than the State that our values and identities evolve; that communities evolve and are informed by customs that have stood the test of time and are protected by the rule of law. In the modern world the State will inevitably have a bigger role but Conservatives believe its reach should always be subject to challenge. The State is just one part of our civil society; it provides the means to protect it.

Conservatives believe in respect for individual freedom and for the agreements, customs and institutions that flow from it.

Another debate surrounds free speech; should you be free to insult your neighbour? An insult can cause deep offence to some, especially if aimed at family or religion, for others it will be greeted by a shrug of the shoulder. In a tolerant and civilised society we should always seek not to be gratuitously offensive. Sometimes it's hard to rub along with many of those around us but we have to learn to live with each other.

If you are a public figure you must expect to be criticised: sportsmen, priests, or whatever. Much criticism is abusive and crude, some bordering on criminal. Politicians above all must expect to be on the receiving end but even for us there must be limits. It's women MPs that have suffered most; many receiving sexual messages of the most unpleasant kind even threatening rape and threats to family members.

Recently you may remember the news story involving Caroline Criado-Perez

who

 

.was campaigning to have a woman featured on bank notes. You may not agree but would you seriously think of sending her threatening messages? Sadly, many did.

Much of the above is covered by the criminal law and goes far beyond what is acceptable. So we all accept limits on our freedom but

there is a point at which the State becomes too oppressive and each little chink knocked away diminishes those cherished freedoms that have been fought for over the centuries. Different societies will draw the line in a different place. Only last year Parliament voted to limit press freedom - again this was just a little but something that would be unconstitutional in the United States where the first amendment states very clearly that 'Congress shall make no law......abridging the freedom of the press.’

107 MPs voted against the smoking in cars ban but lost; has freedom taken another blow?