For thirty years I have been travelling to unfree places, from East Germany to Burma, and writing about them in the belief that I was coming from one of the freest countries in the world: Britain. I wanted people in those places to enjoy more of what we had. In the last few years, I have woken up – late in the day, but better late than never – to the way in which individual liberty, privacy and human rights have been sliced away in Britain, like salami, under New Labour governments that profess to find in liberty the central theme of British history.

I know I've used this before, but 1100 riot police were deployed on the occasion of Sarkozy's visit with Gordon Brown to Arsenal football stadium, allegedly and coincidentally as part of a never-repeated exercise to find 'mobile phone thieves'. Here you can see them marching in formation towards Finsbury Park Mosque. 20 stolen mobiles were found. John Kelly

‘Oh, these powers will almost never be used,’ they say every time. ‘Ordinary people have nothing to fear. It affects just 0.1 per cent.’ But a hundred times 0.1 per cent is 10 per cent. The East Germans are now more free than we British are, at least in terms of law and administrative practice in such areas as surveillance and data collection. Thirty years ago, they had the Stasi. Today, Britain has such broadly drawn and elastic surveillance laws that the local council of a small town called Poole could exploit them to spend two weeks spying on a family wrongly accused of lying on a school application form. The official spies reportedly made copious notes on the movements of the mother and her three children, whom they referred to as ‘targets’, and watched the family home at night to establish where they were sleeping. And this is supposed to be England?

Though the Stasi headline is irresistible, such Stasi-nark methods do not yet make a Stasi state. The political context is very different. We British don’t live in a one-party dictatorship. But nor is this just ‘an isolated case’, as ministers always protest. Almost every week brings some new revelation of the way in which our government has taken a further small slice of our liberty, always in the name of another real or alleged good: national security, safety from crime, community cohesion, efficiency (ha ha), or our ‘special relationship’ with the United States.

Liberty comes last. As the conservative author Dominic Raab writes in his excellent book The Assault on Liberty, this government ‘has hyperactively produced more Home Office legislation than all the other governments in our history combined, accumulating a vast arsenal of new legal powers and creating more than three thousand additional criminal offences’.

Other free countries, including the United States, have over-reacted to the threat of terrorism, violating their own basic constitutional principles and legal standards. The peculiarity of Britain is that we have nibbled away individual liberty on so many different fronts. We have been complicit in American-led torture of our own people; at the same time we have eroded free speech in ways unthinkable in the United States; and we have become what Privacy International calls ‘an endemic surveillance society’.

Yes, fighting terrorism requires some restrictions. Yes, you can make a crime-reduction case for some CCTV. But we have more CCTV and a larger DNA database, a more ambitious, and unworkable, National Identity Register scheme, more police powers and more email snooping than any comparable liberal democracy. Added to which we have a bureaucracy so centralised and incompetent in managing this mass of data that it lost a computer disc with the child benefit details of 25 million people.

What’s more, the certain loss of liberty will often not result in the alleged gain in security or efficiency. So, for example, PM Gordon Brown and other ministers continued to press for 42 days detention without trial, despite the fact that two former heads of the Security Service, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the former Lord Chancellor, Attorney General and Lord Chief Justice – in short, almost everyone in a position to know – said it was wrong, unnecessary and counter-productive. How can a government of intelligent and often personally liberal-minded persons behave so illiberally, arrogantly and stupidly? What screw have they got loose? What nerve is missing?

The fightback has begun, led by three groups: judges and lawyers; unelected peers (witness, most recently, an outstanding House of Lords report on surveillance); and a rainbow coalition of journalists, academics, writers, artists, think tankers, civil society activists and simply citizens, of left and right, young and old, some of whom have now joined together to launch next week, in several British cities, a Convention on Modern Liberty (http://www.modernliberty.net/. See the following Modern Liberty video, which argues that the UK was complicit in torture, rendition and secret prisons.

Notably absent from this list is the one group who should be in the front line when it comes to the defence of British liberties: our elected representatives. This is not just a New Labour failing. With a few notable exceptions, such as the former Conservative home affairs spokesman David Davis, most MPs have been complaisant and pusillanimous beyond belief. For example, last week the Home Secretary (Britain’s interior minister) idiotically banned Dutch MP Geert Wilders from entering Britain to show his noxious and offensive anti-Islam film at the invitation of members of the House of Lords. Result: a curtailment of free speech that gave Wilders more free publicity than he could otherwise have dreamed of. ‘Liberal’ Democrat Home Affairs spokesman Chris Huhne agreed with the decision on the grounds that the film is really offensive. I shall need some convincing that the Conservative front bench are going to be any better.

I’m not sure I fully understand all the reasons for this cravenness, but here’s one. A couple of years ago, I asked a very senior New Labour politician if his government had not got the balance between security and liberty wrong. ‘Well’, he replied, ‘one thing I can tell you is that if you ask the British people they will always choose more security’. And this is where the ball comes back to us. Since our leaders are now mainly followers – following the latest opinion poll, focus group or newspaper campaign – it’s up to us, the British people, to change their view of what ‘the people’ want.

Timothy Garton Ash is Professor of European Studies at Oxford University, a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and the author, most recently, of Free World. A longer version of Tim’s piece appeared in the Guardian.

A Ms Sample has stolen Jacqui Smith's identity

I’ve been sleeping much better these days now that I can look forward to a lovely identity card coming along sometime soon with my new passport. It’s great to know that I shall have my very own unique identity secured in digital format, no expense spared. I’ll no doubt be getting a full life history to go along with it. It will probably know more about me than I do myself. By Jim Hare. 

It’s certainly going to be great fun for the Executive, thinking of all the uses that the card can be put to, all the data that can be collected, all held safely at the heart of government. Where I go for my holidays, where I work, what trains I use, where I shop, the football team I support. The list seems endless. And it will be. It’s not difficult to install card readers – we’ve had them for years – and you can put them more or less anywhere you like. All you need to do is develop the airport approach to life: a swipe of the card adds another few bytes to your digital databank. Great for posterity – you’ll be able to look back and see how many times I went to Asia – or to Asda. 

Don't panic! Identity thieves will be caught on camera

Idyllic as this may sound, I’ve suddenly remembered a book I once read where people were under constant surveillance, their every move watched and recorded. The idea was to keep everyone safe but it achieved the opposite. There was no individual privacy. There was state induced fear, orchestrated by the eponymous Ministry. The foundations of fear were laid by means of a manufactured, constant war. Thank goodness it was fiction. 

The identity card itself seems fairly innocuous. The problem is what it can be made to do, and the accompanying methods and processes for ordinary daily life (the wraparound). The state clearly already knows a good deal about me – tax, health, school, and so on. These all seem relatively sensible, understandable and tolerable. There are valid reasons for the information to be collected, and reasonable ways for me to ensure that it is correct.  

The identity card and what it can bring is a completely different proposition. It is the information and controlling device par excellence – it hits the information jackpot for the state. In effect, the introduction of the identity card is an exercise in massively adding to the power and control of the state. Never mind the argument: if you’ve done nothing, you have nothing to fear. The fundamental issue is that however well- meaning the intention, no-one can be sure that it will not be misused to the detriment of individuals, and of course society as a whole. It’s about more power in the hands of government, quasi-government, and potentially downright non-government organisations, including organised crime. 

The latest technology will ensure complete data privacy

I don’t think that there are sufficient levels of trust or confidence in the state to allow it to acquire such a massive extension to its already large powers and controls. If anything, given the incompetence displayed in more or less every department of state – economic, transport, energy, etc – at best it is clear that the state is a hazard (health and safety speak) to its citizens. What price the introduction of more powers to the state – and very importantly, the insidious introduction that they will have? There is a grave danger that the state will be able to use its new found powers to threaten, exploit, and subjugate.  

The democratic levers that we currently have are a blunt instrument when it comes to dealing with the powers that will be wittingly or unwittingly unleashed on behalf of the state. Even the briefest historical perspective should give pause for quiet reflection of similar sinister episodes in both recent and distant times. Our system of justice and legal processes are not instrumented or sufficiently tuned to arbitrate these matters effectively. 

Consider how the Land of the Free was unable to able to deal with the Guantanamo phenomenon, and that our own House of Commons voted for 42 days detention without charge. We already have the CCTV cameras. Now we’re getting tasers. Where is all this leading? 

By the way, there is absolutely no ideology behind any of these thoughts. Simply the precautionary principle.

Oh, you are naughty, Mr. Plod. But I like you.

The awful events in Mumbai overshadowed a serious breach in democratic principles in the UK on 29 November, 2008. Nine counter terrorist police stormed the Kent home and Westminster offices of Conservative Shadow Minister Damian Green, searched his home, constituency and Westminster offices and detained him under the Official Secrets Act. The MP was bailed after several hours of interrogation on a putative charge of ‘aiding and abetting misconduct in public office.’ David Cameron MP, Leader of the Opposition, immediately decried the actions as ‘heavy-handed’, ‘unnecessary’  ’Stalinesque’ and redolent of ‘Zimbabwe.’ We heard little from the government until today, when Harriet Harman, Deputy Prime Minister and defender of the nation’s freedoms and morals (Thus passim) categorically denied any government involvement but conceded that, though MPs were not above the law, it was a worrying sign if the police were allowed to rampage through Whitehall riffling through MPs’ correspondence. Home Secretary Jacqui Smith admitted that the Cabinet Office had initiated the investigation into the ‘leaks’ and that a civil servant had been arrested as far back as November 11. It beggars belief that no discussion of tactics had taken place.

Ms Smith, defender of the State’s right to taser and tag (Thus passim) took a different but familiar line on flagship BBC political TV show, the Andrew Marr Programme. While (evasively) denying that anyone in the government knew anything whatsoever, before, during and after a well-resourced and highly politically-sensitive operation, she defended the rights of the police to act unilaterally ‘on information received’ as a sign of their democratic independence and refused to apologise in any manner to the Opposition MP. The argument is Orwellian, rather than Stalinesque, and disconcerting on several levels.

Firstly, if the Home Office was completely unaware of this action, relating to leaked information that, amongst other things, up to 5000 ‘illegal immigrants’ were unwittingly employed by government agencies in positions which could compromise the security of, amongst others, the Royal Family, then we have a problem. This fact was admitted by the government (after a leak) in November 2007. Ms Smith admitted that the Home Office was aware of the ‘leaks’, but claimed she and her department were unaware of the impending police action. Secondly, if nobody in the Home Office, up to and including the Home Secretary, was informed or even asked to provide a view as to the necessity of the high profile arrest and detention of the Opposition Spokesman on Immigration, then nothing has been learned from the systemic and endemic failures which led to the departure of John Reid, the previous hardline Home Secretary with, let’s say, distinctly ‘Stalinesque’ tendencies, whose reign of terror, conducted largely in the name of the War on Terror, split the Home Office in March 2007 and left it in disarray.

Thirdly, if the Home Secretary seriously believes that the nation will believe that there was and is no ulterior or political motive in the manner or execution of this operation, she is still living in the dark, spinning, leaking David Kelly days of Peter Mandelson and Alastair Campbell, who coincidentally, have recently returned to positions of influence. Damian Green received information whose disclosure, whether damaging to the reputation (if that’s the right word) or not of the Home Office Immigration Office appears to be pertinent, urgent and appropriate, especially at this tense time. It is also damaging to the credibility (if that’s the word) of the government. The police raid coincidentally occurred on the last day in of Labour-supporting Metropolitan Police Chief, Sir Ian Blair, sacked by Boris Johnson, a high profile Tory who carries a huge amount of executive power as Mayor of London and Chairman of the Metropolitan Police Authority. If any link is suspected, action is required. If the government tacitly supported such plainly extreme action – a phone call would have sufficed – then it needs to explain why.

Ms Smith refused to confirm or deny that she or her department had signed authorisation to bug Mr Green’s phones and Blackberry mobile phone device. If it is subsequently proven that devices or premises were bugged by the police or other agents of the state, then the previous Home Office farragoes will pale into insignificance.

The issue of ‘police operational independence’ lies at the heart of this incident. If we are to believe that there was no co-ordination in an assault on the civil liberties of a high ranking Opposition Shadow Minister, so far not resulting in charges and, moreover, breaching Parliamentary privilege by entering the Houses of Parliament and searching his office, then we are looking at the green shoots of a Police State. If the Home Office was aware and, formally or informally, colluded, we are looking at a full grown Triffid. Deputy Prime Minister Harriet Harman, appeared to contradict Ms Smith by conceding that questions would need to be asked as to how Parliamentarians could expect to function if breach of privilege without sanction, is allowed. The Police know who authorised what, when and how. They should whistleblow, or take the blame if any or all of this is proved to be abuse of power. Cameron should continue to apply pressure for an official enquiry, (pressure has already yielded a Commons statement).

1984 was literally a bad year for British democracy. The Miner’s Strike and IRA Terror introduced breaches of democratic and constitutional principles which Labour in opposition were powerless to oppose. We could be facing a constitutional crisis which transcends tribal politics. This time round, Labour, even in its senescent state, should know better than to think we’ll be fooled into acquiescence by mutterings of things beyond our ken.

Gary McKinnon

Thus is not normally a campaigning website, but please sign this petition on behalf of Gary McKinnon. The UK government and House of Lords have done nothing to protect a UK citizen’s rights. If it weren’t deadly serious, it would be risible, and is a horrible reminder of the nightmare slide into totalitarianism of the past eight years.

McKinnon hacked in to US military sites looking for evidence of UFOs nearly 7 years ago. He never denied his crime. His hacking was extensive, but not motivated by malice. He admitted it to the UK police, who told him he would get a community service sentence. Since he was never charged in the UK, he now faces extradition to the US and life in a Supermax prison. McKinnon suffers from Asperger’s Syndrome. Incarceration will almost certainly exacerbate his condition. According to his supporters, he has an honesty compulsion that will get him into terrible trouble with fellow inmates. There is little chance of either a fair trial or leniency, given that the US authorities have already said they want to see him “fry”.

His request for a judicial review was scheduled to be heard on December 2, but his supporters say that the Law Lords now anticipate setting a date for hearing the request any time from December to January, 2009. Let’s hope it’s after Obama’s inauguration, and that commonsense prevails. This is a hangover from the one-sided extradition treaty bulldozed through in the name of the so-called War on Terror. A demonstration is planned outside the US Embassy and the ‘office of Tony Blair’ on 5 December 2008 from 5-7 pm. Meanwhile, you can petition your MP to sign Early Day Motion 2388, a modest proposal which calls upon the Home Secretary to ask our US masters to repatriate McKinnon on health grounds in the (likely) event of being found guilty in the US courts, according to the terms of the 2003 Extradition Act.

Pass this petition link on to as many people as you can and try to avoid a serious miscarriage of justice.

http://www.gopetition.co.uk/petitions/stop-the-extradition-of-gary-mckinnon/signatures.html