1055 Freedom From and Freedom To

Freedom From' and 'Freedom To' are concepts which should be at the forefront of the thinking of all politicians participating in democratic governments. I first came across these two ways of looking at the concept of freedom while studying for an Oxford University Diploma in Public and Social Administration while at the Ruskin Adult College, which although not part of the university, had arrangements which enabled students to sit university examinations, attend university lectures and participate in university clubs, as well as join colleges for the second part of degree courses on the basis of performance over the first year at Ruskin, the recommendation of the Principal and special interview at a college. Almost midway during a Diploma course in Politics and Economics I decided that I wanted to study criminology and psychology and the Principal agreed I could do this by switching courses and which involved undertaking practical work placements to become a social worker.

I then had the most extraordinary of years with tutorials and seminars in Criminology at Nuffield College, and which led to being invited to address the University Crime a Challenge Society, and dining at the Oxford Union at a table next to where future Prime Minister Edward Heath was being dined by the University Conservative Club; having Social Administration tutorials with a member of the University Institute of Social Work, who went on to become a Professor and visited to seek information about Social Security issues during the period when I was a Director of Social Services; and psychology tutorials at the University Institute of Experimental Psychology with someone who used much of our time together to try and persuade me to try for the university degree course in Philosophy and Psychology. My tutor invited me as a guest to a dining club for university staff who were not attached to university colleges and we ended the evening playing billiards at the top of .Nuffield College Tower.

I got the place at Ruskin, changed courses and received the invitations, because I had been to prison for six months primarily for trying to be an unofficial inspector of weapons of mass destruction in Essex. A few others of similar inclination laid down peacefully in a country road in the middle of no where in front of a line of embarrassed policemen who explained that we could not continue and they would have to arrest us which they did apologetically lifting us gently into police vans and to a magistrates court in Essex where we stunned the bench by refusing to pay modest fines.

As most had travelled some distance for the event we had small amounts of cash for food and subsequent travel home, so this was removed from everyone soon after arrival at our respective prisons to pay the amount of the fine then outstanding. I had less than £2 so was imprisoned for part of the week. Deciding that the authorities had not taken our protest seriously we met again and on a narrow vote, decided to repeat the demonstration which went exactly as before, very much like Groundhog Day, with one notable exception, the government arranged for a Treasury Solicitor to explain to the Magistrates how much our activities was costing the taxpayer and threatening the state, despite our previously good characters and good intentions and model conduct not being in dispute. He demanded that we give up our activities for a period of two years or go to prison as civil prisoners for six months and be asked to pay a significant fine towards the costs of the trouble we had caused everyone. Thirteen of the fifteen participants, six adult men and women and one young man under the age of 21 refused to enter into the recognisance and completed the full six months. In the instance of myself and the five other adults males we were taken to Brixton for a week, then an open camp on the Isle of Sheppey, then back to Brixton for a week and then to an Open camp in the Midlands were the Governor had a sense of humour and justice an allocated me to an outside working party demolishing a World War Two armaments factory site. Unfortunate for some reason no one ever explained our period at Drake Hall lasted only a few days when without warning we were moved to Stafford Closed Prison where although civil offenders we were accommodated with first time in prison criminals but where I also had opportunity to occasional meet recidivists who were brought over under special escort for books at the wing library where I worked. Although we were supposed to be under the direct supervision of a prison officer we were left for hours at a time to manage the issuing of books and this enabled me to get to know a large number of prisoners from a variety of backgrounds, as a consequence of which I decided to undertake social work.

I have mentioned the two experiences of prison and adult education to explain what I mean by 'Freedom From' and 'Freedom To.' Most people expect a democratic government to protect them from being oppressed, from invading forces, from terrorists, and from criminals, and from people who lay down blocking roads irrespective of their motives and justifications. This is 'Freedom From.'

'Freedom To' is having the choice and the opportunity to go to prison to make a point that one does not wish to be associated with Government action even in a democracy, or to have the opportunity to experience adult education at a place such as Oxford University which in the 1960's was still like Brideshead Revisited, except it was open to the likes of me.

The world, the threats to the survival of human beings and planet life, and the nature of protest and anti government action has changed significantly over the past five decades, but the issues have remained the same. It is the function of democratic governments to take appropriate action to deal with terrorists and insist that its citizens respect the political decisions of the majority taken through the ballot box. In many respects the key to an effective democracy is the supremacy of the rule of law.

I can understand the need for the agencies of government to be able to collate information and track anyone who threatens both our combatants and every one else, who are regarded as non combatants, and given the nature and complexity of technology it is understandable that existing practice will be questioned in relation to surveillance and use of surveillance as evidence, to detaining suspects while investigating the potential evidence and the need to centralise information and coordinate intelligence and policing services, and the pressure will be exerted on politicians to adapt practices to meet changing threats and circumstances.

I for one having no problem with identity cards or the central collation of information about me, including my DNA, as long as government and its agencies can ensure priority is given to the accuracy of the information and its protection from misuse. Unfortunately both cannot be guaranteed, so the government has to ensure there are checks, including the ability to view information and submit corrections in relation to factual information.

However I also have great sympathy for those who are distrustful of such changes, and fear that we are now down the slippery road to a central, secret police, state, where the information can be used by governments to maintain power and destroy oppositions, and by major criminals to increase their wealth and influence.

I had the privilege of an experience which demonstrated just how much we need to guard the guardians when I attended the national civil defence college during my time as a local authority chief officer, and participated in a mock, but realistic exercise of taking civilian control from the military, but with their continuing advice and assistance, after a nuclear weapon had exploded in a large city conurbation where a significant part of the population were obliterated, a substantial number were in the process of dying without any prospect of survival and where food, water and shelter was limited and the quantity less than the number of people likely to survive.

What do you about individual looters or when there is mass attempt by the dying to take supplies from the recovering? Some were only too ready to authorise summary justice and shoot on sight without a trial or plea of mitigation, and would, for example, shoot a dying man, or woman, who wanted to relieve the suffering of their dying child. And would you really order the troops to open fire on your mother, daughter, and fiancée who lived in the wrong side of town from the viewpoint of the exercise and who had joined in with the rest of the dying mob? All we could do is to work out the rules of engagement and leave decisions to those who were faced with taking decisions in the direct line of fire, and once we had done that we were obligated to back them up, even when mistakes were made, or someone when faced with the reality could not cope.

At the end of exercise groups nominated representatives to form a cabinet type committee to organise the reconstruction of the city. What struck me was that despite the reality of the exercise, being told that the rest of ones family or work colleagues had not survived, or that our collective decision taking had resulted in more people dying than was necessary, when it came to working out what to do for the future, the debate and the solutions were exactly like the competitive and adversarial positioning and game playing which had caused the situation which led to someone, or some group deciding to explode a weapon of mass destruction on people who were no direct part of their grievance or ambitions.

However I could not be too harsh on colleagues because I was one of them, and those who live in glass houses should be very cautious about throwing stones. Democracy, however much politicians sometimes are forced by the nature of party ambitions, to pretend, can only ever mean representative government and those in government must govern on behalf of the general good regardless of political pressure about their individual futures, and those who manage and administer services must give advice without fear or putting concern for their occupational futures above those who have given them the privilege of service.

The public, you and me, must always try and understand the complexity and difficulties. Which those involved have to face. Take the situation in hospitals deciding who gets the available heart transplant from a priority list of three candidates, knowing two will consequently die. There is the mother of under aged eleven school children, who has stayed home to look after them and her husband, gone to church, looked after her aged parents, given to charity and done a little voluntary work. There is a teenage girl with an inherited heart condition, who has spent several years of medical care and life experience restriction waiting while her condition deteriorates, and who has raised thousands of pounds for cancer research, and thirdly, a known wife beater, and suspected abuser of his own children, who is an internationally recognised medical research scientist known to be about to make a breakthrough in the cure of a cancer from which thousands die world wife each year. Which one do you save and why?

I return to the question of identity cards which many on both sides of the Atlantic regard as a threat to their fundamental freedom to live as they wish without any state involvement unless they break a law set by their local community. What if a majority of the population are willing to take the risk of being blown up, or of having a loved one blown up, rather than give up their right not to be categorised, collated and routinely checked out? What if the majority want the troops to be pulled out or would rather live under a communist, fascist, religious or criminal dictatorship, than possess and potentially use weapons of mass destruction.

For me the answer has always been straight forward. You try and persuade a majority of your neighbours to support those prepared to stand for office and put your views into practice. You use the democratic opportunity. I cannot pretend one will be effective because interests with funding to use the media and influence politicians will always exercise disproportionate power to their number.

And what if you disagree with Government and the majority?. Does this mean you must shut up and be inactive? Three of the most important books in my life other than the New Testament helped me to solve this dilemma. The first was by Aldous Huxley, 'Ends and Means' which I bought as a 1938 Readers Union edition, from a second hand bookshop in Manchester on 20th March 1963, while undertaking a practical work placement which the Manchester Children's Department. This together with a first English Translation edition of Satyagraha, Gandhi's work on the power of non violent action, and which has recently been made into an opera with music by Philip Glass, made me understand that you cannot fight for a non violent society using violence. You have to accept that governments who have a different duty will adopt any means appropriate to stop you, if they feel mandated by the majority, and you have to accept the Christian, Muslim, Jewish. and that of other faiths', understanding of self sacrifice for the greater good.
And the third work? From the writings of Erich Fromm, in works such as 'the Fear of Freedom', 'the Sane Society,' and, 'the Art of Loving,' that everyone should have the freedom to develop their physical, emotional, spiritual and intellectual abilities to their maximum potential, but in the context of not interfering or adversely affecting the similar rights of others to do so, unless they contravene the laws of a democratically elected government. If you break the law you expect to be punished, although because in a democracy you can expect not to be treated as harshly as in other types of government, the practice of civil disobedience should be limited. You must always be prepared to pay the price of putting your conscience into practice.
You should also never disregard the courage and the potential self sacrifice of those who do take up arms on behalf of the state and always honour them even if you disagree with the service which they have carried out on behalf of the majority. They are a significant part of 'Freedom From and also of enabling one to experience Freedom To'.