Samizdata

On her blog over at the Spectator website, Melanie Phillips, a writer with whom I generally agree on certain things, not least the right of Israel both to exist and defend itself, writes what I think is a poor article on David Davis’ recent decision to hold a by-election in his parliamentary seat to highlight the loss of civil liberties:

Much is being made in some quarters of the apparent gulf between the view taken of David Davis’s resignation by the political and media village (he’s lost the plot/is a one-man plot/is a monstrous narcissist) and the public (he’s a hero fighting for Britain’s ancient liberties). I can’t help but see all this as yet another example of the replacement of reason by emotion. I can certainly see that Davis has touched a popular chord among people who feel passionately – and I have much sympathy with this – that MPs no longer act in the public interest and no longer speak for them but instead are machine politicians whipped by their party leadership into a systematic denial of reality. I also sympathise with the general view that the state is encroaching more and more oppressively into people’s lives – the abuse by local councils of anti-terrorist legislation being a case in point. To that extent, the quixotic Davis is surfing the popular tide of anti-politics, which explains much of the support he is getting and is not to be under-estimated.

“Much is being made”. Yes, that is because the loss of civil liberties and the spread of the database state has reached the point where ordinary members of the public – those ghastly people – are getting riled. David Davis is a sufficiently paid-up member of the human race to have spotted this. But to dismiss his action as some sort of Dianaesque emotional display, rather than what is in fact a pretty shrewd, calculated act seems a bit patronising. And then we get to the reasoning that explains why Ms Phillips dislikes what Mr Davis has done:

Second, he says he is against 42 days because he stands for the hallowed principle of not locking people up without charge. So does that mean he is against the 28 day limit as well? And if he is, then surely he has to be against the 14 day limit that preceded it, and the seven day limit before that. Indeed, according to the principles he has laid down he has to be against any detention before charge at all. Similarly, he says he’s against the whole ‘surveillance society’ including speed cameras, DNA databases, CCTV and so forth; yet he also says he’s not against all of this, and doesn’t want to get rid of all DNA testing because some of it is perfectly sensible. So what exactly is he fighting for? And why couldn’t he do so within his own party, which largely takes precisely the view he professes? Has he given this any systematic thought at all? Despite his SAS image and multiply-broken nose, is he not merely beating his chest and emoting, in tune with the sentimental irrationality of the age?

Well, leaving aside the snide remark about his “SAS image”, I am not sure how Mr Davis would reply to all of those points but his recent remarks make it pretty crystal clear that he is against the holding of DNA on innocent people, for example, or even shorter periods of detention without trial. Ms Phillips, presumably, is in favour of all the above and more.

Then we get an argument that Mr Davis is in favour of all this “emotional” civil liberties stuff because he is insufficiently aware of the threat Britain faces from Islamic terrorism:

It also strikes me that there is a strong and quite vicious sub-text to the support he has been getting within certain political circles, which are backing him against what they call the ‘neo-cons’ in David Cameron’s circle — by whom they mean in particular Michael Gove and George Osborne. The thought-crime committed by these two is to analyse correctly the threat to this country posed by Islamism and to support America in its fight to defend the free world. The anti neo-cons believe, by contrast, not merely that Britain must put critical distance between itself and American interventionism, but that the threat to Britain from Islamism is hugely exaggerated, both from within as well as from without. It is in that context that they maintain that 42-days is unnecessary because the dire warnings about the likely threat to this country are unproven and that the extension of the detention limit is instead a Trojan horse for the willed erosion of our ancient liberties.

The reasoning is weak. It does not seem to cross her mind that one might be as concerned as the next man about terrorism – as I am – without feeling the need to chuck out long-standing protections of the individual that were not even removed – or at least only shortly – during emergencies such as the Second World War. It may be that some people on the right dislike the “neocon” argument out of some naive attitude about terrorism, or some sort of hatred of Israel/America, etc, but that does not appear to be the case with Mr Davis. As far as I can tell, he is very much from the Atlanticist tradition of conservatism.

Ms Phillips is also playing to the bad argument that to be a defender of liberty is to be a softie on security. We have to absolutely nail this terrible idea that you can trade off one against the other.

By contrast, here is a cracking article that takes Mr Davis very seriously indeed.