British Adoption Of Anti-Democracy Laws

Britain does not have a written constitution or a Charter of Rights, the
Magna Carta notwithstanding. It also has a unitary government, although
some autonomy in some matters has been allowed to Scotland and possibly
to Wales. Unitary governments tend to be less democratic because of the
concentration of power in one locus.

Britain has also had a long-standing problem with Norther-Irish terrorism,
both in Northern-Ireland and on the main island. British civil liberties have
suffered in the past as a result of draconian measures adopted to deal with
terrorism. So it is not a far stretch from special laws to target terrorism to
special laws to target hooliganism, a problem which has plagued Britain for
several decades. Tony Blair's Labour government has created a new legal
monster which destroys civil liberties and which is difficult, if not impossible,
to contstrain.

A new law, introduced in 1999 and expanded in 2003, allows a local
government [municipalities] and police to obtain "anti-social behaviour
orders" [ ASBOs] against individuals on flimsy grounds without adequate
proof [hearsay can be resorted to] in respect of behaviour such as
displaying suicidal tendencies, failing to securely corral your farm animals,
carrying condoms if you are a prostitute, using the word "grass", throwing
rhubard or speaking sarcastically to neighbors. The law permits orders to
be made against anyone displaying anti-social behaviour "causing or likely
to cause harassment, alarm or distress."

The definition is so broadly worded that mere annoyances can be caught
by it. The definition of "distress" is such a subjective thing that it depends
on the alleged "victims's" perceptions and susceptibilities, not on some
reasonable and objective standard. In other words, it is a nightmare for
anyone who offends another persons sensibilities, because that seems to
be all it takes to have an order made against you.

Why is this such a dreadful attack on civil liberties? It is such because,
based on the making of such an order, should the person against whom
the order was made disobey it, a criminal charge can be prosecuted and
the accused is subject to up to 5 years imprisonment for merely
breaching the order.

In other words, it is possible for the municipal
authorities and the police to create a myriad of criminal offences,
customized to suit the occasion.

Our usual concept of criminal law is that the governing legislature
passes criminal laws affecting the entire nation after open and public
debate, publishes them, and then enforces them. This concept has been
thrown out the window. Criminal offences then become a matter of local
whim and prejudice.

This is, indeed, a characteristic of the arbitariness
of state and police treatment of people in dictatorships such as
Nazi-Germany, the Soviet Union, Iran, Myanmar, and a host of other
Muslim countries. It is also characteristic of the attitudes of
those who call themselves socialists, who are so certain of their
righteous correctness that they not only tolerate such laws, but
bring them into being.