YouGov/ Spectator poll reveals little civil libertarianism

David Cameron's new emphasis on greater protection of the public appears to have been vindicated by a new opinion poll by YouGov for The Spectator.  YouGov has found that 69% of Britons want detention without charge for up to 90 days and 55% support passenger profiling at airports (anyone wanting to propose this for the 100 policies project please drop us an email).

The most encouraging finding of the poll is that the public appears to understand what is at stake in the war on terror - or what should more accurately be called the war on Islamic fascism.  Nearly three quarters (73%) agree that “the West is in a global war against Islamic terrorists who threaten our way of life”.  Only 8% think that “Islamic terrorism is a regional problem that poses no real threat to the West”.

Stephan Shakespeare, founder and CEO of YouGov, has written a commentary about the poll's findings in today's Platform, entitled Whose side are you on?

Comments

[James Maskell]

Its really no suprize that the poll findings are as they are. Bearing in mind the events of last week, it shouldnt be. Ask the same questions in say 8 months time and I bet you'll get different answers...

[William Norton]

I disagree with you on this one, James M. I think the same result more or less would have happened eight months ago or in eight months time.

[Laughing Cavalier]

In his State of the Union address to Congress on January 6,1941 President Franklin D Roosevelt, quoting Benjamin Franklin reminded the assembly that

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"

We would all do well to remember those words, especially in the face of an illiberal authoritarianism from this Labour government that amounts almost to neo-fascism. What it offers is a Faustian bargain that will, soon enough, be turned against us as well.

Surely, if the Conservative Party does not stand for the freedom of the individual in the face of overweening government it stands for nothing at all. A party that does not oppose such Stalinist authoritarianism is unworthy of its name and heritage.

[Gildas]

It is unsurprising that so many people support 90 days detention without charge. You find lots of people support the similarly un-British idea of ID cards.

The reason is that most people have no awareness of our traditional ancient liberties - their origins and their history. Blame the school system. Blame the media. Blame the Right for ceding the Civil Rights ground entirely to those on the Left who see Liberty as equal to License and have given it a bad name (look for example at how the No2ID campaign never found a way of expressing its opposition in a way that would appeal to a conservative audience).

Until we on the Right re-establish the notion that some things (such as no to detention without trial) are sacrosanct because they are part of our long tradition of Liberty, and are inherently British things, a large swathe of the population (with our target voters heavily represented therein) will accept restrictions such as this as a good idea.

[William Norton]

Gildas: actually, for once, I don't think this has anything to do with the country's appalling educational standards. It's more likely to be the general thuggishness of the British people on law & order so long as they have no contact with the system themselves. You can carry out a simple test - ask any large group of people to put up their hands if they support "zero tolerance" and most of them will - then ask them to leave their hands up if they love speed cameras.

Crimes, you see, are things committed by other people. If a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged I've often thought that a lot of civil libertarians are Tories with parking tickets.

[Ted]

Gildas gets to heart of the problem - education (both formal and informal through media & politics) seems to treat us as being at year zero. I was lucky to have Michael Zander as a law lecturer whose passion for and panoramic view of the creation of common law and the development of principles has stayed with me.

The problem with conservatism and civil rights is that there is an inherent bias against change in conservatism which means Civil Rights movements were viewed suspiciously. The strength of conservatism is that it inherently values what our forefathers created so values the ancient rights & liberties. No Conservative PM would have made comments about 21st Century crimes as being an entirely new challenge as Blair does as they would recognise that human beings have behaved the same for centuries. The Serbian Black Hand and the anarchist bombers of the late 19th early 20th centuries presented many of same challenges.

So Blair, Reid, Blunkett and co can re-introduce measures under the banner of 21st Century modernisation that are closer to Tudor justice and the Star Chamber.

Cameron was right to come out against further erosion of liberties and better enforcement of current law.The Conservatives are well placed as a party that has a reputation in Law and Order to make the case for liberty, whereas Labour with a poor reputation have taken the road of oppressive legislation to try to gain a mantle of being a strong Law & Order party.

[arthur]

I seem to remember reading some time ago, about a massive survey done by the political department of the University of Sheffield. The conlusion of the survey, which took many years to complete, was that despite a long period of Tory government, the preferred government of upto 70% of the UK electorate was a slightly left of centre mildly authoritarian government. Obviously NuLabour were avid readers of that survey. If anyone out there has any further information on that survey, perhaps they could put it online.

[william]

See how much governments care about civil liberties. The Serbian tit for tat murder of Jill Dando was embarrassing to Blair as he had advocated the bombing of the Serbian TV station, in which the popular Serbian TV presenter died.

The Police dragged out a local nutter, planted evidence and stitched him up. He rots in jail to this day, where he's done a big job saving Blair's face.

How about Colin Stagg? He was another inadequate, fingered by the Police as guilty of Rachel Nickell's murder on Wimbledon Common to ensure they had a suspect. He was accused in the media for ten years. Now it seems he was innocent from DNA evidence.

Brtitish people have had civil liberties as a given, the assumption of evidence, Habeas Corpus, trial by jury and so on. All these are now threatened with extinction by our system of law merging with Europe's, combined with Labour-style news management. People would do well to realise that governments don't care who goes to jail as long as someone does.

The 90 day detention period is helpful for media management. 48 hours is too short a period for the Police to admit they don't have any or enough evidence, (as with the arrest of all these alleged 'terrorists'), because the media can stand guard for 48 hours and report every twitch. After 90 days, the news has moved on, and the bogey men can be quietly let out.

Over a 90 day period, many detainees will start admitting to crimes if suitable techniques are used. Some might agree to act as informers, which could be useful.

[Richard]

55% back profiling? This could cause quite a stir...

[David Belchamber]

"Until we on the Right re-establish the notion that some things (such as no to detention without trial) are sacrosanct because they are part of our long tradition of Liberty,.."
Gildas @ 08.49, what do you say to the suggestion that suspects held under the Terrorism Act would have to appear in (possibly a closed) court before judge at the end of 28 days? The judge would have the power to remand the suspect in custody for a further 28 days, if convinced that a case was shaping up but that investigations were not yet complete.

[Cardinal Pirelli]

Do not use the word fascism. This is completely unacceptable, such insults to all jews and the memory of teh holocaust is not the way to win friends. It is deeply upsetting and yet, despite having pointed this out, you continue to do so shoving our faces in it. I am very angry and ask you to cease this forthwith.

Thi is not a conservative way of dealing with the world, you are doing exactly what Inigo Wilon said and using a word to close down debate. It is utterly pathetic and unworthy. Stop kowtowing to the very un-conservative Bush, his stupidity should not be rebroadcast.

Yes, I'm angry, so should we all be.

[Cardinal Pirelli]

Having read the first few comments I'm slightly less upset now. Thankfully there still appears to be a number of libertarian minded conservatives prepared to stand up to the neo-cons.

If this site is to slavishly follow the neo-con use of language I doubt whether its influence will become more widespread. These neo-conservatives are as much a danger to the party as the Militant Tendency were to the labour party in the past. I know that comment won't be liked by many but I hope that it reflects more tnan just a few of us.

That Cameron appears not to be going down that route gives me great hope for the future.

[Ted]

David

English Law used to have Grand Juries where the state needs to prove there is a case to answer - this was replaced by committal process. Grand Juries tend to support "case to answer" as the procedures allow prosecution to present the case without presence of defendant or counsel. They do however add a degree of protection - police can step over mark in their certainty of guilt (as mentioned above in say Stagg case).

It should be possible within common law it is possible to draft legislation which both protects the rights of defendants and adds weight to Security concerns.

The government has presented no good evidence to the need for 90 days - history shows few held beyond a week without charge. If there cannot be sufficient evidence gathered in 28 days the case must be very weak and perhaps more of a fishing expedition rather than a compelling reason to hold people.

[Gildas]

"Gildas @ 08.49, what do you say to the suggestion that suspects held under the Terrorism Act would have to appear in (possibly a closed) court before judge at the end of 28 days? The judge would have the power to remand the suspect in custody for a further 28 days, if convinced that a case was shaping up but that investigations were not yet complete."

David, I'm not sure to be honest. I'm gung-ho for the War on Terror, support Gitmo etc (I wish the Gitmo "Brits" were still there in fact), and yet the first 28 days is a long time in itself and relatively unprecedented in our system of justice. As a conservative I'm instinctively distrustful of novel ideas. Surely 28 days is enough time to charge someone with *something* (treason springs to mind), rather than holding them without charge.

Perhaps the problem is to do with the admissability of certain evidence. In which case we should amend the law there, rather than eroding an ancient right any further.

[Gildas]

At the risk of feeding the trolls...

"Do not use the word fascism. This is completely unacceptable, such insults to all jews and the memory of teh holocaust is not the way to win friends."

No. Fascism is a description of one particular despicable political system, first implemented in Italy, well before the Nazis adopted it.

It is often used in modern political knockabout in a facile manner, but to suggest that using the word 'fascist' (for instance to describe a group of extremists who enjoy murdering Jews) does not in any way denigrate the memory of the Shoah.

[Gildas]

Ted makes a good point about Grand Juries. Re-introducing them would be a good safeguard in other respects too, since it would prevent some of the more farcical CPS led prosecution, such as those of old ladies who hit yobs.

[Cardinal Pirelli]

Gildas - The neo-conservative minority here seem to me to be the trollers, hardly representative of the party.

I ask for moderation of language, thankfully Cameron understands this, he even (quite rightly in my opinion) did not refer to a war on terror but a struggle.

By using the term fascist the neo-conservatives are attempting to say 'these people are like the Nazis, no use talking we have to destroy them'. It upsets muslims naturally but also, from my moderate jewish friends, I know how much it annoys them. You will find most Israeli people are much more moderate in this as they know how use of such terms is counter productive.

I often feel that those who throw about such terms desire large scale conflict and are not interested in building bridges between communities, something that any Conservative party should be doing.

This is at the heart of how we should be approaching policy, debate is essential so please don't try and close it down by words such as 'fascist' or 'troll'.

[David Belchamber]

I am very grateful to Ted @ 10.56 and to Gildas @ 11.02 for their thoughtful responses to my suggestion.
I agree wholeheartedly with the basic premise that an accused - even a suspected terrorist - must be presumed innocent until proved guilty and I would support the staus quo if the argument were to be polarised into that or 90 days.
However, finding the evidence against terrorists can take a tremendous amount of time - sifting through millions of phone taps etc - that I think my suggestion could provide a workable compromise between the two extremes.
I also agree with Cardinal Pirelli @ 10.44; we must be careful using the word "fascist" because of the connotations; language we all know is so emotive (which is why I would like to replace the words "immigration/immigrant" by at least three different words, so that we focus on the very different issues involved). "Islamic extremist/fundamentalist" might be better or maybe we should concentrate on the imposition of Sharia law which I imagine we do not find acceptable for the UK.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

James Maskell is right (as he often is!). People rightly want security but, speak to them on a 'normal', they'll tell you that they values their freedoms. We need a competent government to balance out the two. I fear that this authoritarian government will use the events of the past ten days to further curb our freedoms - ID cards are back on their agenda. Terrorism gives Socialists the perfect excuse to control us - we should resist them! And, before anyone thinks I'm 'soft', we should have stricter immigration laws and better integration amongst the Muslim community. If anyone has already made these points, apologies - not got the time to read every post.

[Annabel Herriott]

Fascism --fascismo. Principles and organization of the patriotic and anti-communist movement in Italy started during the 1914 -18 war, culminating in the dictatorship of Benito Mussolini, and imitated by Fascist or blackshirt associations in other countries. Oxford Dictionary.
While I am busy clearing the air,
Troll. - Supernatural being, giant, or (later) friendly but mischievious dwarf, in Scandinavian mythology. Oxford dictionary.

[Cardinal Pirelli]

Thank you!

I was confrontational in my earlier post for which I apologise, the sentiment is still the same however.

What this should not do is take us away from the main problem, which is how to combat the rise in islamic extremism, something of which libertarians and neo-cons are in complete agreement. We defeated communism by offering a more vibrant and more free society and we should make this the cornerstone of our struggle against islamic extremism.

I can't recall the quote exactly but I remember a Vietnam War general saying that they tried to defeat them with weapons when they needed to defeat them with refrigerators (not sure if that's totally correct but you get the point!)

[Ted]

O/T - While I agree with the Cardinal about misuse of term fascist there is an historic thread linking the anti-Israel rhetoric & actions of the Jihadists - both Sunni & Shia - with the Third Reich.

The activities of the Mufti of Jerusalem at the time and continued influence in Palestinian politics today, combined with the anti-Jewish actions, rhetoric and publications show a continuation of those pro-Nazi sentiments.

The pro-Nazi activities of the Iranians led to the Anglo-Russian invasion in WWII. The underlying anti-Jewish / anti-West thread connects directly to the current regime. The link between Hitler's Aryan myths and the land of the Aryans had some influence.

It's not fascism though that is the common ground but the anti-Jewish agenda.

[Cardinal Pirelli]

One should also not forget the attempted collaboration with the Nazis of Avraham Stern or the admiration of fascism from certain Zionists such as Ze'ev Jabotinsky, who particularly admired Mussolini.

I just think that people need to know their history before they start throwing around terms which they don't fully understand. The links with fascism of pre-war (and even during the war) Zionists is very unfortunate and use of the term brings back memories, mistakes and only serves to polarise the debate.

[Denis Cooper]

Two points:

1. The EU has been steadily extending its powers on Justice and Home Affairs, but all such matters are still subject to the national veto. On September 22nd Reid will be meeting with his counterparts from other EU member states to decide whether to accept a Commission proposal to abolish the veto. If that happens these questions will be decided by majority vote, and as the UK has only 9% of the votes our neighbours will be able to make the decisions for us whether we like the outcome or not. The general direction of change in our criminal justice system has already been towards the EU's Corpus Juris, based on the so-called Napoleonic Code, and of course that would greatly accelerate.

2. When looking at poll results on prolonged detention of "terror suspects", remember that 97% of the population are not Muslims, and there is a natural tendency to assume that this law would only affect Muslims. I would wager that whether the poll question referred either to "terror suspects" or specifically to "Muslim terror suspects" the results would be similar. I suggest that the great majority of Muslims who have no inclination at all towards terrorism actually need the Tory party to defend them against this wicked proposal, because few of the 97% non-Muslims will now speak up for them.

[George Hinton]

Perhaps we need to bring back capital punishment for certain offences such as premeditated murder, murder of a police officer and treason. The latter is of course the all embracing charge that can include terrorism, without being specific and upsetting the bleeding heart liberal types.
These polls though never seem to generate the weight for a referendum, giving all the people the right to a specific opinion, rather essential these days.
Whilst its all very heartening will it last, and can the Cons profit from the comments, before the leftie pundits pooh pooh it as an aberration and wind up the usual suspects to talk it down on the marxist public TV channel.

[John]

The relationship between National Socialism and Fascism, was a complex one. It was only Mussolini's desire to ride on Hitlers coattails that brought Fascist Italy and Nazi germany together: ideologically they were miles apart. It was Mussolini alone who decided to persue an anti-semitic policy and this again he did to please Hitler, on who he was becoming more reliant.

Mussolini's first meeting with Hitler in 1934, Hitler lectured Mussolini on world affairs, and commented that 'All Mediterranean peoples are tainted with negro blood' as you can imagine, this did not go down well.

At the Fascist international conference at Montreux 1934 no Nazis were invited. In fact at that conference the Nazis were attacked as being: too socialistic, too anti-individalistic, and too anti-catholic. Even extremist ulta-fascists such as Roberto Farinacci and Giovanni Preziosi wrote that Nazism with its parochial and exclusive racism was offensive to the conscience of mankind and would push Europe into communism. Mussolini wrote in the fascist publication Gerarchia in May 1934, 'Nazi racism was opposed, yesterday to Christian civilization, today to Latin civilization, and tomorrow to the civilization of the entire world,'

The position of Jews in Italy, was never a 'problem' Jewry was very small in numbers 47,000 people or scarcely more than one tenth of 1 percent of the population-and was thoroughly intergrated in society, with one of the highest rates of mixed marriages of any Jewish group in the world. The Jewish minority was thoroughly identified with Italian patriotism and had a remarkably distinguished military record in WW1, Second Mussolini himself had always derided NAZI mystical racism. Third the Fascist movement was iteself disproportionately Jewish-that is, Jews made up a greater proportion of the Fascist movement at all stages of its history than that of the Italian population as a whole. Five of 191 sanseplocristi who had founded the movement in 1919 had been Jewish. 230 Jewish Fasicists had participated in the March on Rome, and by 1938 the party had 10,215 adult Jewish members. Mussolini had had several Jewish collaborators, including his favorite and most influential mistress, Marherita Sarfatti, He had been officially blessed by the chief rabbi of Rome and had assisted in the early development of a Zionist navy as a maneuver against British imperialism. Constanzo Ciano, high fascist gerarca and father-in-law of Mussolini's daughter, had even made a speech in 1929 saying that Italy needed more Jews. it was not until 1938, as Mussolini became more indebted to Hitler that the Fascists took an anti-semitic line. Yet and perhaps more important, the anti-semitic policies were badly recieved by Italian citizens and even within the Fascist Party, for the sudden propaganda campaign against Jews had comparatively little effect, and even some party leaders considered it servile kowtowing to Nazi practice.

The position in Fascist Italy I think you will agree, can in no way, be compared to the situation in Nazi Germany.

If you need to know more 'A History of Fascism 1914-45' by Stanley G. Payne

[John]

The relationship between National Socialism and Fascism, was a complex one. It was only Mussolini's desire to ride on Hitlers coattails that brought Fascist Italy and Nazi germany together: ideologically they were miles apart. It was Mussolini alone who decided to persue an anti-semitic policy and this again he did to please Hitler, on who he was becoming more reliant.

Mussolini's first meeting with Hitler in 1934, Hitler lectured Mussolini on world affairs, and commented that 'All Mediterranean peoples are tainted with negro blood' as you can imagine, this did not go down well.

At the Fascist international conference at Montreux 1934 no Nazis were invited. In fact at that conference the Nazis were attacked as being: too socialistic, too anti-individalistic, and too anti-catholic. Even extremist ulta-fascists such as Roberto Farinacci and Giovanni Preziosi wrote that Nazism with its parochial and exclusive racism was offensive to the conscience of mankind and would push Europe into communism. Mussolini wrote in the fascist publication Gerarchia in May 1934, 'Nazi racism was opposed, yesterday to Christian civilization, today to Latin civilization, and tomorrow to the civilization of the entire world,'

The position of Jews in Italy, was never a 'problem' Jewry was very small in numbers 47,000 people or scarcely more than one tenth of 1 percent of the population-and was thoroughly intergrated in society, with one of the highest rates of mixed marriages of any Jewish group in the world. The Jewish minority was thoroughly identified with Italian patriotism and had a remarkably distinguished military record in WW1, Second Mussolini himself had always derided NAZI mystical racism. Third the Fascist movement was iteself disproportionately Jewish-that is, Jews made up a greater proportion of the Fascist movement at all stages of its history than that of the Italian population as a whole. Five of 191 sanseplocristi who had founded the movement in 1919 had been Jewish. 230 Jewish Fasicists had participated in the March on Rome, and by 1938 the party had 10,215 adult Jewish members. Mussolini had had several Jewish collaborators, including his favorite and most influential mistress, Marherita Sarfatti, He had been officially blessed by the chief rabbi of Rome and had assisted in the early development of a Zionist navy as a maneuver against British imperialism. Constanzo Ciano, high fascist gerarca and father-in-law of Mussolini's daughter, had even made a speech in 1929 saying that Italy needed more Jews. it was not until 1938, as Mussolini became more indebted to Hitler that the Fascists took an anti-semitic line. Yet and perhaps more important, the anti-semitic policies were badly recieved by Italian citizens and even within the Fascist Party, for the sudden propaganda campaign against Jews had comparatively little effect, and even some party leaders considered it servile kowtowing to Nazi practice.

The position in Fascist Italy I think you will agree, can in no way, be compared to the situation in Nazi Germany.

If you need to know more 'A History of Fascism 1914-45' by Stanley G. Payne

[Richard Allen]

If 73% of the British people really believe that “the West is in a global war against Islamic terrorists who threaten our way of life” then this country is well and truly done for.

If our society is so weak that we think terrorism threatens our way of life then we have fallen so far that our society is not worth defending. What must those who lived through the Blitz think of our pitiful cowardice?

[John Hustings]

Libertarianism of any kind has never been a popular philosophy, which is why it's so odd that some people think the Tories would become ever so popular if only they reinvented themselves as a libertarian party and abandoned social conservativism.

[Blair OUT]

Decidedly fishy, this YouGov Poll. I'm a member of YouGov's panel - so why wasn't I asked to vote on this? Could it be because my voting habits tend to be anti-authoritarian, anti Blair (anti Cameron on his off days) and largely libertarian?

[Richard]

Yougov won't ask all their members, it would cost too much.

[Graham D'Amiral]

Sometimes we need our politicians to lead opinion not blindly follow it.

[Spacy Sunday]

Blair OUT: Yougov did exactly the same to me for, I imagine, the same reasons. Yougov only polled about 2000 people anyway; it's terrifying to think how many people will feel they should change their opinions because of this poll, which contained many 'leading' questions.
To all the neocons out there:
1. How are these Islamists supposed to destroy our way of life, exactly? We are a rich, capitalistic nuclear power with similar allies. This paranoia only suits politicians and war-profiteers, on both sides.
2. 'They hate our freedom.' Has that ever been the real reason for war or terrorism? No doubt the other side are being told 'They hate our piousness.' These crazy 'Islamists' were a minority viewed as cranks before we really started slaughtering Muslims. Before that, most extremests just wanted the West out of their own countries.

And as for the fascism argument, I think it is incredibly relevant to today's world.

'fascism should more properly be called corporatism, for it is the merging of state power with corporate power.'

Benito Mussolini (whom Bliar has admitted to admiring greatly).

[Peter Berrow]

The only thing you can say about the poll is that their are very many people in the UK who are stupid enough to think that another Hitler will never get back into power in Europe with powers of above. The problem is we have already got one in Putin who has destroyed the independence of the upper chamber as well as local leaders and I'm sure in terms of the 7% barrier in trying to restrict parties like the SPS and Yabloko
getting into the Duma in December but hopefully they will and with the help of the Communists and Just Russia boot out Putin as quick as possible. People may not like Libertarians like myself but at least we don't destroy the neighbourhood.

[Caroline]

I have no problem with the phrase islamic fascism. I live in Cairo and my boyfriend, who is Jewish, rightly describes certain members of the Muslim Brotherhood here as fascists, not just because of their anti-semitic ramblings but because of their wider politics.

I dont think that muslims should be offended by the term either. My muslim lecturers here, whether egyptian or croat, stress the importance of expressing the difference between 'islamic' and 'islamist'.

My only problem is the 'war'. Ahmedinejad is an islamic fascist and we are not at war with him. If we were at war with people of such political persuasion in our own country then we would be in a state of civil war.

Our problem is with terrorists, and this is a problem that has existed for a long time. It is no reason to give up civil liberties as though we were at war with the threat of invasion.

Introduce a police state and those who do not value our libertairian culture will simply start running for election.