Tuesday, 1 July 2008

Fear leads to cowardice then servitude, or heroism and freedom

Did Labour* ever set about a policy of reducing our freedoms ( or civil liberties as those on the left would prefer to call them ) ? Maybe there are some who have hopped to seize power and hold it in a Bolshevik style, but they are perhaps a small minority (unless all this stuff about "Common Purpose" has any truth to it - in which case we are in real trouble).

Then why are they legislating to change the nature of our country, by removing fundamental freedoms that have been been the inheritance of many and then later every English man for almost 800 years ? These freedoms and the love of them have directly lead to the formation of the United States of America, without which the world would almost certainly have been conquered by either National Socialism or Communism.

I would like to suggest its the left's, and especially Labour's, response to fear.

In the 1980's the Left responded to the very real fear of Nuclear Armageddon by proposing appeasement and unilateral disarmament. It was was a response based on cowardice and that would - if carried out - have lead to our, perhaps irreversible, servitude. This very policy condemned them to opposition for a decade, but they learned the wrong lesson from this.

They appear to have decided that they must always look tough, when what they really should have understood was the importance of standing up to your fears.

Since Irish Republican terrorism was primarily aimed at the Conservative party and the forces of law and order, Labour had little to fear from it. ( Indeed many in the left wing establishment sympathised or openly supported. Labour MPs were quite happy to argue against the Prevention of Terrorism Act being renewed each year - remember such powers were only temporary then .)

But now terrorism is aimed at the wider population and Labour fear losing an election in the manner that the Spanish government did after the Madrid bombs. There response to the fear from the blackmail of terrorism has been to protect itself (ie the Labour government, not th people) and show cowardice.

This is exactly the response that those using terror hoped to achieve.

They use terror to create fear, and rely on our reaction to that fear to change our society in a way that suits their aims.

Yes the surrender of the West would be nice, but the surrender of western ( and especially English ) values and principles will do to be getting on with.

And by again taking the course of cowardice the Labour government are providing them with that victory.

We have a choice - conquer our fear and stand up to the threat - as we did in the cold war, or surrender and panic as Labour are doing with 42 days detention without trial. In doing so we have acquiesced in our own servitude to an all powerful state.

It has been argued elsewhere that the only way the threat from Islamic terrorism will be defeated is in terms of the battle of ideas. Surrendering your high ground and some of the most attractive principles of our society to keep a few Labour careerists in their highly paid jobs is no way to do this.

If we don't live in the land of the brave, then we won't live in the land of the free. The Americans at least understand this.

* I realise that many people who are Labour party members disagree with their parties policies here, but they must accept responsibility

1 comment:

Stop Common Purpose said...

Yes, this stuff about Common Purpose really does have some truth to it: http://www.stopcp.com