From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE Richard North What is particularly delightful, but also disturbing, about the current popular rebellion, ostensibly over fuel taxation, is the squawking indignation of the sneering classes, the Islington man - and woman. The delight comes easily from watching their discomfiture as they struggle to come to terms with a protest that owes its strength neither to union power, political party allegiance, nor the "rentamob" tendency which can be so quickly mobilised to demonstrate on a wide range of soft-left issues, from countryside sports, to global warming. Rather, it was a lose alliance of hauliers, farmers, taxi-drivers, and even fishermen - evidently supported by the bulk of tanker drivers - exercising their individual rights. What particularly seems to have affronted Charles Secret, of the Friends of the Earth - himself no stranger to direct action - was the spontaneous nature of the demonstrations and their lack of defined leadership. This, to him, was so evidently abhorrent that, in a debate on the issue on BBC4 radio , he was moved to argue that, "Once we move away from respecting the law the road to anarchy is opened. But what makes the reaction disturbing is the complete incomprehension displayed as to the underlying reasons for the protest. The Polly Toynbees and Max Hastings of this world totally failed to understand that the rash of protests was much, much more than a revolt against increased fuel prices and taxation. However, The Daily Telegraph, in a powerful editorial , had already provided an answer: "... being tough and enterprising people, they speak for themselves. They are not and do not want to be political, but they feel they have no choice". Christopher Booker, provided further answers in his Sunday Telegraph column writing: "It has not escaped notice that what lay behind last week's nationwide protest was the anger of a wide coalition of different people, farmers, fishermen, hauliers and others, weary of being rushed about and dictated to by our newly overbearing type of government, run by a political class of self-righteous politicians and officials who seem not only to have lost contact with common sense but to be wholly uncaring about the consequences". What we were seeing, therefore, was a reaction to the decay in democracy and, crucially, a more general revolt against State interference, the fuel demonstrations being only the immediate focus of resentment. The profound lesson from the crisis should be that the democratic mechanisms on which we have so long relied have simply ceased to function. But such is the detachment of the political classes from ordinary people, who were the ones that were rebelling against our "newly overbearing type of government" - or applauding from the sidelines - that Will Hutton, incredibly, in the debate alongside Charles Secret, felt justified in claiming: "We have a system developed over centuries of Parliamentary democracy?. He went on to argue that this democratic process was the only legitimate way of airing grievances. Booker, concluding his column, drew the inevitable conclusion: "There is still no real understanding why last week's eruption took place?, he wrote, "ressed - and their freedoms are being unreasonably curtailed - they will take to the streets The 19th Century political commentator, Walter Bagehot, sometime editor of the Economist, had a thing or two to say about freedom. One of his finest arguments against the steady incursions of government was summed up in the following words: "Our freedom is the result of centuries of resistance, more or less legal, more or less illegal, more or less audacious, or more or less timid, to the executive government. We have accordingly, inherited the traditions of conflict, and preserve them in the fullness of victory. We took on State action, not as our own action, but as alien action; as an imposed tyranny from without, not as a consummated result of our own organized wishes". Essentially, Bagehot was putting into word the principle that freedom is not given, but taken; the maintenance of freedom is a continuing battle and we keep it only by constant struggle. Faced with the torrent of legislation, restrictions, and taxation which oppresses farmers, hauliers, the meat industry, and a whole raft of independent businessmen, there could hardly be a single person on the picket lines outside the petrol refineries who would not have agreed with that last sentiment. But what has been particularly characterised the arguments surrounding this crisis has been the Government's quick resort to what can only be described as "shroud waving" - its exploitation of the (marginal) difficulties experienced by the NHS in obtaining supplies, and the loss of mobility of its workers, some of whom have had difficulty in getting to work. Too many people - even amongst the ranks of the protesters - have been concerned by the problems reported, to the extent that fear of adverse publicity from the first child claimed to die as a result of the fuel "blockade" was instrumental in the action being terminated before assurances from the Government to reduce taxes had been given. United States Judge Louis Brandeis, would have recognised this situation, when he warned in 1928 that, "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion to their liberty by evil minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding". Anyone who understood the tactics of the Government, however, would have instantly recognised that it was relying on conveying the impression of being "men of zeal, well-meaning?, to carry the day. But even if the government was "well-meaning", it was certainly without understanding. The more general problem is that the successive governments, who have collectively imposed their crippling burdens on the ranks of businessmen, are not populated by evil men - or women. Yet the men and women who write oppressive laws, and those who enforce them, collectively do more damage to our freedom, in the long term, than ever did Hitler. Hitler failed because he was recognisably evil. But the grey, colourless men who rule us are not clearly recognisable as the foe; they do not wear alien uniforms and goose-step across the country (or at least most of them do not). Nevertheless, they are potentially and actually the greater threat to our liberty. So how do we deal with them? More or less legally, more or less illegally, says Bagehot. We go to the barricades, as the truckers, the cab-drivers and the farmers have done, and many more will have to do. Not yet though is it time for the bomb and the bullet; Northern Ireland has been an experience too horrible to contemplate but, if the Government continues to ignore the howls of anguish, some fear it may yet come to that. Thus, those who declaim the actions of the protestors should be careful. Despite Will Hutton's squawking, the good-natured civil disobedience exhibited by the protestors has an honourable history. It has been used by a wide variety of "interest groups", from ratepayers' associations withholding rates, to Womens' Liberation groups disrupting beauty competitions, to egg producers refusing to obey insane regulations dictated by the Ministry of Agriculture in the wake of the "salmonella in eggs" crisis of the late 1980s. Furthermore, civil disobedience is the last peaceful mechanism available to the people, before violence sets in. Few bad laws, few corrupt administrations, and still fewer oppressive tax regimes have yielded to the polite lobbyist and the reasoned argument. Business is beset by bad laws and corrupt administrators, all "good men" who do evil. For businessmen faced with the day-to-day imposition of stupid laws and oppressive taxation, the way forward as obvious and inevitable as it is necessary, if only because the consequences of yielding to evil are greater than those of opposing it. There are a considerable number of ex-businessmen who would still be in business today if they had heeded these words. Those who are still in business and will remain so are those who will heed them, and take the necessary action. The Government would be wise to listen to them - and act upon their concerns. But most of all, the Government needs to address the root causes of the decline in democracy which The Daily Telegraph identified. Greater respect for Parliament by the Prime Minister would be a good start, as would reducing the power of the whips - giving MPs more freedom to vote on the merits of issues, rather than slavishly following the government line. The central issue, however, must be to address the essential loss of democracy engendered by our membership of the European Union. That, itself will be no easy thing, but will become easier when more people begin to recognise that the Union is not so much undemocratic as anti-democratic, and clamour to leave. Fortunately for this Europhile Government, the protestors this time did not realise how much their woes were caused by the EU, as was made clear, according to Christopher Booker in his Sunday column, "at the meeting of EU finance ministers nine days ago, Mr Blair and his partners are committed not to lower fuel taxes as part of agreed EU policy". "Next time it (the crisis) will not be brought so neatly to an end before any real harm is done", Booker warned. The trouble is, as long as we remain members of the European Union", there will be many more "next times". 16 September 2000 Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___________________________________________________________ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
