Gordon Brown on liberty
While this great tradition can be traced back to the Magna Carta, it was the rise of the modern state with all the new powers at its disposal that made the 17th century the pivotal period in the struggle against arbitrary and unaccountable government —— as Britain led the way in the battle for freedom from hierarchical rule, for human rights and for the rule of law.
And tracing Coke’s defence of common law, the work of John Locke and the Bill of Rights of 1689 right through to the first of the Reform Acts, Macaulay concluded that ‘the authority of law and the security of property were found to be compatible with a liberty of discussion and of individual action never before known’. (“Speech on Liberty,” Gordon Brown)
It’s a fascinating speech for the depth of understanding it goes through before proposing national ID cards and a DNA database. In today’s United States, I can hardly imagine the President giving a speech this deep or nuanced.
Well worth the read on Guy Fawkes day.
Via the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.
[Update: As Nicko suggested in comments, I read too much into this, and in the Queen’s Speech, Brown made no clear mention of ID cards or DNA databases.]
Thanks for noticing. Brown’s speech has had its detractors in the days since, but you’re right in noting that not many politicians in any country would spend that much time talking about basic philosophical principles.
Colin McKay
Director of Communications
Office of the Privacy Commissioner
It’s a fascinating speech for the depth of understanding it goes through before proposing national ID cards and a DNA database.
While not a huge fan of Gordon Brown, I’m hard-pressed to find anything in the speech “proposing national ID cards and a DNA database”, and as such I think your comment is more than a little disingenuous.
On ID cards he suggests that they have legislated to require “proper accountability to Parliament” (though to date the executive hasn’t been very accountable in terms of budgeting or reporting of progress) but other than that there seems to be nothing in the speech promoting the concept. On DNA (and other biometrics) he merely states that new technology is an important tool in solving crimes, but I don’t see a word suggesting that there should be a national register.
Did I miss something, or was the attack merely there to promote an editorial agenda?
Am I reading too much into these three quotes?
and
and
the last, with the juxtapositioning of biometrics to protect each indivduals’ ‘identity,’ seems to me to be an implicit call for some form of national biometric database.