Neil Lock
Recently, I attended the 2015 annual general meeting of Liberty, the biggest organization promoting human rights in the UK. I’ve been a member of Liberty for about 12 years, and I’ve been to their last three annual general meetings.
Now, I’m a radical. That is, I like to delve into the roots of things, and the principles behind them. But politically, I am neither on the left nor the right. For some years, I have identified myself as a minarchist. That is, someone who wants only the minimal government necessary for civilized living. And I’ve consorted for more than 25 years with libertarians – that is, people who want to allow each individual the freedom to do the best he or she is capable of, and to enjoy his or her just rewards. Most of those people, I’ve learned over the years, seem to favour the political right over the left. But Liberty people tend to go the other way.
Normally, Liberty hold their AGM in London. But this year, it was in Manchester. So why did I go all that way from Surrey, where I live?
Well, there were several reasons. First, I wanted to touch bases with my left leaning liberty friends, particularly with an election coming up, and the prospect of repeal of the Human Rights Act if the tories get in. (Would they also repeal Magna Carta and the 1689 Bill of Rights, if they could?) Second, I love to explore. I’ve “collected” all the major British city centres except Belfast; and my last visit to Manchester was in 1977, since when it has changed a lot. And third, I find any excuse for a plane ride to be a good excuse. And every flight I take is one in the eye for the greenies.
To the meeting itself, on Saturday 25th April. The venue – University Place in the University of Manchester – was, in my opinion, better than the usual venue in London. More comfortable, and everyone was together all day.
The steward team were young and efficient. Now, it’s normal among libertarians to ask: “where have all the women gone?” I can answer that: “Gone to Liberty, every one!” My best guess is that 80% of the white-T-shirted team were pretty young women. So I dubbed them, of course, the Liberty Belles.
The program(me) was better than in previous years. The opening discussion panel was excellent – Professor Janet Beer, in particular, was brilliant. During the coffee break, I told Frances Butler (the current head honcha of Liberty, and someone for whom I have a lot of time) how much better that panel had been than a similar discussion two years previously, which had included three politicians. She obviously took note; for, five hours later, a change of policy for such discussions was announced. And it went in the direction I had suggested.
There was something new in the air this year, too. For the first time, among left leaning people I sensed the same feelings of anger and frustration and contempt and loathing for the political system that I myself have felt for decades.
I’ll give some quotes and reflections from the day:
- “Accountability.” This word was uttered many times by speakers, panellists and questioners from the floor.
- “Bad legislation goes through regardless of which party is in power.” (Bella Sankey, Policy Director of Liberty).
- “If responsibility was an issue, it would include half the government.”
- “No taxation without representation.” You’d expect an audience mainly of leftists to boo this; but they didn’t.
- The Asylum Seekers’ Choir. Not entirely in tune, but getting their message over superbly. They had a deserved ovation. (And no, my right leaning liberty friends, they did not sing “Cum Baya!”)
- “It’s the system that is the problem.” (Owen Jones).
- “Not a democratic society, but a dictatorship.” (From the floor, echoing Quintin Hogg from 1976).
- “The Blairite faction were very authoritarian.” (Owen Jones, a labour supporter).
- “There is a sustained attack on the rule of law by the political class.” (Peter Oborne, journalist – on film).
- “This all-party attack has been going on for 20 years.” (Peter Oborne again).
- “Nationalism and xenophobia are the crack cocaine of politics.” (Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty).
Now, I do have issues with some ideas that Liberty people profess. I can’t understand why many on the left seem to have such a visceral hatred of private industry. Nor why anyone with even half a mind could possibly vote for any of the mainstream parties on May 7th. (I have the same problem with my right leaning liberty friends, too; sigh). Maybe I need to get out more, and drink (lots of) beer with liberty friends on both sides.
To go on. My vote for Quote of the Day is tied between Bella Sankey and Peter Oborne. And, if I may, I’ll complete the third side of their triangle, by saying: Bad legislation is not law. (If you are old fashioned, you might prefer Edmund Burke’s version: “Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.”)
I really enjoyed my day out with Liberty, despite too much feminism (though not as bad as last year). And the following day, I was lucky enough to be able to explore Manchester in sunshine – something which even the locals rarely get a chance to do.
Now, I am one of those rare liberty lovers (perhaps the only one in the UK?) who tries to reach out to both left and right. Sometimes I feel a bit like that statue on the hill near Gateshead; however far I stretch my arms, I can’t quite touch anyone on either side. But I felt touched on that Saturday in Manchester.
Leftists like to talk about solidarity. But I prefer “building alliances.” It is clear that Liberty people and libertarians, even those who identify with the political right, have enemies in common. I think it may be worth both sides’ while to get to know each other better.
Discover more from The Libertarian Alliance
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I absolutely agree with Neil’s comments on ‘building alliances’. More than 40 years ago Ivan Illich told us all that the real left/right divide is between those who wish to centralise power and those who wish to disperse it.
Such an analysis cuts diametrically across the orthodox left/right spectrum.
The ‘new left’ and the ‘old right’ have more in common with one another than their corporatist counterparts in the ‘old left’ and the ‘new right’.
I attended many Bromsgrove Group conferences in the days when that was running. There were people from across the orthodox spectrum who had left their rhetoric and labels in the cloakroom and who, in an informal person-to-person setting, mostly got on famously.
Such an informal, open agenda forum is needed again. Any interest?
You can’t cut deals with leftists. However chummy you may be in person. They want more power regardless of what is said. There might be the odd weirdo who doesn’t but by and large Trust is –and should be–long Dead.
To compare the “Human Rights Act” with the Bill of Rights or Magna Carta is profoundly wrong. It confuses limitations on government power, with giving arbitrary power to judges (the two are very different things). It also shows a confusion as to what a “right” is.
But, for the record, both of these things (the Bill of Rights and Magna Carta) have already been repealed – by the legal doctrine (dominant since the Blackstone heresy) that any later Act of Parliament trumps them.
As for “rights” generally.
A “right” should be a limitation on government power – rather than a good or service to be provided by government. Or something to do with participating in government.
Robinson Crusoe on his island is not deprived of any of his rights – even if he starves to death. There is no “right to life” – only a right not to be murdered (a very different thing).
The fact that he (for example) can not take part in an election, is not violation of Mr Crusoe’s rights.
“But people live in communities and that changes things”.
Yes they do – and no it does not.
Rights under natural law (natural justice) remain exactly the same for people in civil society as they are for Mr Crusoe. When raiders come it is a crime for them to rob or murder Mr Crusoe – and it also a crime for his neighbours to rob or murder Mr Crusoe, or anyone else.
Collectivists of either left or right can’t be accommodated. They don’t believe in individual rights, what they call “rights” could, at best, be termed entitlements. There is no common ground between someone who believes in individual liberty and the various stripes of collectivists and statists in it’s a waste of everyone’s time to imagine or pretend otherwise.
There’s two types of people – those who believe it’s fine to gang up on the individual in the name of “society” and those who believe in individual rights and dignity.
Isn’t Liberty the group that had its Director was one of the advisors for Lord Leveson’s ploy to regulate the press? Isn’t it the same group that opposed the right of a Christian couple to deny a gay couple from staying own their justify acquired property?
These “human rights” lawyerly fiends are no true allies of freedom.
You are right that the director of Liberty was involved in the Leveson “inquiry.” My suspicion is that she was included on the panel as a token supporter of human rights. I wouldn’t have accepted the nomination; but she has her own mind.
It’s common practice among the devious, dishonest political class to include “useful idiots,” if you will, on such bodies. It makes the process appear transparent and unbiased (but of course it is not).
As to the two cases of Christian hoteliers not allowing gay couples or unmarried heterosexuals to share a bed, this is quite an extreme interpretation of property rights. I confess that I’m on the gay couples’ side here, not to mention the unmarried partners’.
Anyone taking such a view must, if they are honest, also think it wrong to restrict others’ use of their property on any other arbitrary grounds, such as because it’s Sunday. But I doubt that either of the proprietors would agree with this. Furthermore, in one case, there was very likely a breach of contract, since the gay couple were not told of the restriction when they booked.