Obstructions to Freedom in Britain

Britain finally took sentencing seriously this summer. Despite previous announcements that prisons were incapable of absorbing more convicts, courts stood firmly on the side of order. The use of televised sentencing only heightened perceptions that the crimes committed in the aftermath of the Southport stabbing were particularly egregious. The decision to broadcast sentencing statements to every TV screen in the country was not a ploy to fill up TV programming schedules, but evidence that even TV executives were fully devoted to the mission of His Majesty's Government. 

While most Britons supported the crackdown on violent conduct, efforts to police speech surrounding the riots spurred on debate regarding appropriate limits to speech in general. That "grossly offensive" speech is criminalised under the 2003 Communications Act drew the derision of many international observers, including Elon Musk. Whether motivated by genuine support for our speech laws or merely a reflexive objection to the American Right, zealous defence of the Blair-imposed speech regime ensued. Even the X account of Larry the Cat, the Downing Street pet, assured us that Musk's cries for "freedom of speech in the UK" were misguided because "rights come with responsibilities." 

Britons demonstrated their aversion to personal liberty once more when Keir Starmer confirmed that the Government planned to ban smoking in pub gardens and outdoor restaurants. Despite Nigel Farage's self-casting as the spokesman for the silent majority, public opinion is at odds with his pre-emptive protest. 58% of the country, including a majority of Labour, Conservative, and Liberal Democrat voters, state that they "strongly support" or would "tend to support" the plans. The British people at large, aware of the harms brought on by smoking, welcome limitations on their freedom if they believe it will correct their neighbours' bad habits.

Keir Starmer, the least joyful person in Westminster

This sentiment is reflected in the rhetoric of our politicians. In the interview confirming the Government's plans, Keir Starmer headed his response with a defence of the policy: over 80,000 people lose their lives every year because of smoking. Without stopping to bridge the chasm between is and ought, he leapt to another justification for the ban: necessary as relief for the NHS. By appealing to that idol of 21st century Britain, Starmer steered himself clear from suffering any poll-related backset as a result of this announcement. One does not have to be a political mastermind to gauge the level of public devotion to the National Health Service and, by extension, the number of freedoms the British people might be willing to cede for its survival. The NHS consistently polls as one of the most favourable British institutions, and its role as the largest employer in the United Kingdom (and seventh largest in the world) makes criticism of its ever-enlarging budget seem tantamount with an assault on Britain herself. Such thinking is not the preserve of Labour; Johnson et al. adopted a similar line during the COVID-19 pandemic. Similarly aware that mere mention of the Service would see many people sit at home and shut up, "PROTECT THE NHS" was chosen as the battle cry of the effort to enforce the lockdowns. 

The expanse of the State's social provision has been weaponised to subjugate Britons into a position of quiet obedience. Like children, the British people have been fed with one hand and chastised with the other. Our politicians don't even pretend, never mind endeavour, to uphold the cause of freedom because there is no political capital in such fights. A British Bill of Rights, although proposed sporadically by some on the right, would struggle through Parliament and almost certainly be repealed by the following Government. Freedom-loving Britons, therefore, should not hope for a change in the political constitution, but a change in the constitution of our hearts and minds. Only a seismic shift in principles, engendered by a re-imagination of English and British history, can deliver the desired political change downstream.

Ironically, such a task might involve the appropriation of the anti-liberty consensus' beloved "British Values." Dreamt up and codified by the Conservative-LibDem coalition Government, the supposed civic principles that define Britishness are "democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and mutual respect and tolerance for those of different faiths and beliefs." While a notion of "British values" is not sufficient as a circumscription of British identity, a thorough education in British history would lead pupils to the conclusion that civil principles such as parliamentary government and natural rights that are part of their inheritance. A people properly aware of the struggle to establish parliamentary government on these shores would not allow the assaults on our constitution that have occured since 1997.

The bid to repeal absurd speech laws and stop pub garden smoking bans affects us all. The principle at stake is not the scientific question of whether smoking causes harm but the civilisational question of whether the State will act as our permanent parent. Keir Starmer promised to "tread less lightly" in July; I say, "Don't tread on me at all."