“Taking Liberties” was shown at the Broadway cinema this week. Reviews of the film generally praise it for shedding an important light on what they say is an illiberal new Labour government.
The film contains animation sequences to emphasis why civil liberties are important. One sequence saying how the loss of liberty in 1930’s Germany led to “Kristallnacht”. And yet the films ends with one of the peace-loving civil liberties protestors saying the way to protest was not just to write a letter to Tony Blair, but to wrap the letter around a stone and throw it through Tony Blair’s window. Presumably, a justifiable “Kristallnacht”.
This doesn’t negate the film. Although you get a much better view if you check out alternative descriptions of the episodes portrayed in the film, as described in Wikipedia.
And what about the measures that the Labour Gov’t have introduced on civil liberties? Human Rights Act. Freedom of Information Act. Equalised the age of consent for gay men. Introduced civil partnerships.
- -
I’m not clear if anyone will ever put together a riposte to the film or to offer a bit of balance. So I’ve had a go, largely, it has to be said largely relying on wikipedia.
Other comments on the incidents & episodes listed in “Taking Liberties”
The film “Taking Liberties” lists six central pillars of liberty –
· Right to Protest,
· Right to Freedom of Speech,
· Right to Privacy,
· Right Not to be Detained Without Charge,
· Innocent Until Proven Guilty &
· Prohibition from Torture
Right to protest
- the Fairford protest that was not allowed; shown in the opening sequence of a protest being stopped from reaching the Fairford air base in Gloucestershire and shown to have been improperly stopped, but only once it had reached the House of Lords - http://www.fairfordcoachaction.org.uk/case/index.html
- Protesting near Parliament - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serious_Organised_Crime_and_Police_Act_2005
- Protest at a Brighton arms factory - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EDO_Injunction_Case
- Protest at East Midlands Airport - http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/nottinghamshire/topics/climate/ On 24 September, 2006, a group of protesters 'breached security' at the East Midlands Airport and occupied one of the operational taxi-runways. The 21 activists from Plane Stupid said they "wanted to see airport expansion plans scrapped, a tax on aviation fuel and plane tickets, and an end to short haul flights."
Free speech
Examples used include - - Walter Wolfgang at the Labour Party Conference - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Wolfgang - which the film shows the Labour Party apologising for the next day;
Privacy Example used included ID cards -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_national_identity_card
I recall the film saying it will be compulsory to carry a card. The Gov’t web-site says “You will not have to carry a card, although you may find it simple and convenient to do so. The police have no new powers associated with the scheme and they will not be able to stop you and demand to see your card.”
The film is emphatically against ID cards. It doesn’t explain one of the key reasons for the change to supporting ID cards - combating identity theft (which advances in technology has enabled; nor did I think the requirement would be to carry ID cards).
The film does pose that challenge to those of us who support their introduction - how do you stop the collation of such huge amounts of data leading either to “fishing trips” against people by members of authority, or to a public in fear of authorities.
But we know such data can lead to quicker investigations of crimes, releasing resources for other work. The Hilda Murrell case was investigated for years and got nowhere before the development of DNA technology enabled the murderer to be found. Releasing resources to provide more of the services that give the public more confidence to feel safe in their streets & neighbourhoods is needed & wanted.
Detention without Trial The case of an Algerian originally charged as a member of the Wood Green ricin plot (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_Green_ricin_plot ), cleared and subsequently on bail for another charge which some of the jurors who were part of the process of acquitting him now feel are trumped up But unlike wikipedia, the film fails to explain that one person was convicted of a serous crime
Extradition
The NatWest 3 case (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Natwest_Three );
Torture
Moazzam Begg who was interrogated without charge at Guantanamo Bay for three years - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp
Other General Criticisms
A reviewer from the Independent (whose front pages are loved by the makers of the film) asks “Do we really find it helpful to be told that "Tony Blair wasn't a politician, he was a movie star". Actually, he was a politician. And if it's not this rhetorical bluster then it's the galumphing sentimentality of smearing every reported miscarriage of justice with weeping violins that grates.”
One reviewer criticised the film by saying - “Towards the end one Human Right’s lawyer describes herself as being interested in these kinds of issues because she’s a “Human Rights Nerd”. Exactly.”
The film kept mentioning Churchill – for instance on ECHR - but that was Attlee - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights and it was made available to British Courts by the Labour Gov’t in 2000.
Some of the episodes chosen were ones which were quickly acknowledged as things that were got wrong (e.g. events at the Labour Party conference).
There is a lack of balance in the film. It’s very possible that the film-makers may well have found that their targets did not want to co-operate with them - I don’t know. One of the devices used is to keep showing Tony Blair with George Bush in US press conferences.
At no point are a positive list of rights achieved listed, for instance -
· Implemented the Human Rights Act - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Act_1998
· Implemented the Freedom of Information Act - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_2000
· Equalised the age of consent for gay men - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Offences_(Amendment)_Act_2000
· Introduced civil partnerships - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Partnership_Act_2004
A general statement from Charlie Falconer is available at -http://www.dca.gov.uk/speeches/2003/lc031203.htm
[Posted on the blog 2007-08-04]
Comments