Sunday, January 31, 2021

The government wants to recruit children to spy on their parents

My latest on LifeSite.

The U.K.’s Conservative Party government was elected in 2019 on a wave of revulsion at the patronizing progressivism of the political elite, which was doing its best to frustrate the implementation of the result of the 2016 referendum on leaving the European Union (EU), and condemned patriotic voters as “low information” and racist.

This government has now finally implemented our departure from the EU, “Brexit”, but in many parts of the establishment the old elite are clearly still very much in charge. The government’s attitude to the family, the natural, basic unit of society, is starkly revealed by a proposed law they wish to ram through Parliament, despite it being once already defeated by the House of Lords. The Covert Human Intelligence Sources Bill, due to be considered in the House of Lords in February, allows for the recruitment of children of 16 and 17 years old to spy on their parents, and at the same time allow them to break the law in doing so. The Daily Telegraph reports:

Covert child agents can break the law if it means they will be able to glean information that could prevent or detect crime, protect public health, safety, or national security or help collect taxes, says the guidance, quietly laid by the government this month.

But it’s ok, we are told, because this will only be done if any one of twenty different state agencies, who are given this power, takes the view that it is justified by “exceptional circumstances.”

Read it all there.

Support the Latin Mass Society

3 comments:

  1. I share Dr Shaw's concern.

    My only comment is that, for those unfamiliar with UK politics, some background is needed to understand the situation.

    He describes in colourful language the "revulsion at the patronising progressivism of the political elite" as opposed to the Conservative government elected in December 2019 (with a larger majority than the existing Conservative government which had been in power, in one way or another, since 2010).

    He goes on to say that "in many parts of the establishment the old elite are clearly still very much in charge" and gives this bill as an example.

    All I would say to this is that it over-complicates a simple situation. The government has a majority of 80 (in a House of 650) in the House of Commons. It can do whatever it likes there. Because of the constitutional position of the Commons versus the Lords, the Lords can mount no effective opposition to this or any other proposed law.

    My conclusion is not that the government is somehow being manipulated by a shadowy "old elite", much less by "the overlords of the developing progressive-authoritarian state" (as the full version of Dr Shaw's interesting article puts it). They are simply doing this (a) because they can and (b) because they want to.

    There is no way that a government with such a majority could be bamboozled - by anybody, inside or outside the political "elite" or "establishment" - into introducing legislation which the Cabinet did not wish to see enacted.

    Food for thought.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not suggesting the Gov is bamboozled or manipulated. I wrote: 'The government’s attitude to the family, the natural, basic unit of society, is starkly revealed by a proposed law they wish to ram through Parliament, despite it being once already defeated by the House of Lords.'

      It is the Gov's own attitude which, as you say, is at issue. The elite are there - in government.

      Delete
  2. I am grateful for the explanation, although still confused by what exactly this "elite" is.

    In your first paragraph, it seems to refer to those who thought that membership of the EU was generally a good thing. So presumably this doesn't include the government - all of their MPs were required to sign up in advance to whatever deal the government could negotiate, so by definition they can't form part of this "elite".

    Later in the article, however, the "elite" or "old elite" refers to the government, as you have explained.

    And it is presumably the conservative government who are "the overlords of the developing progressive-authoritarian state". There are no other overlords at the moment, given the government's 80-strong majority in the Commons.

    So the argument seems to be either:

    - that all politicians form an "elite", which somehow operates against the will of the people, or

    - that there are multiple "elites" within the political class, which can be made up of representatives of a single party or of several.

    Personally, I don't think that the concept of an "elite" or "elites" is particularly helpful. In the end, governments are elected, and depending on the size of their majority, they can enact more or less radical policies. Likewise, other politicians can oppose government policies, but doing so doesn't necessarily mean they are "elite" in the normal sense of the word. In the end, both parties rely on people to vote for them, and that, rather than any sense of belonging to an "elite" is what gives them their legitimacy to enact or to oppose.

    I continue to agree with you that a rather extreme authoritarian government (in this case a right-wing one), able to enact more or less whatever intrusive and repressive policies it wishes, is a dangerous thing.

    ReplyDelete