PER 2015
familiar, and almost blindingly obvious as to where it will lead, it will be no surprise that 100 years down the line, politically the UK would have made very little advances through such a revolution. So why is an anarchist revolution so popular with students, ignoring the fact that this has just not been properly thought through? In President Eisenhower’s words, “ To be true to one’s own freedom is, in essence, to honour and respect the freedom of all others ” and this is something that is always overlooked. Many people often don’t think about the larger picture. Take the extradition of Abu Qatada; this was a man who had previously encouraged and supported race motivated attacks and vocally supported the Twin Towers attack in 2001. So when Jordanian authorities approached the British government to have him extradited, they couldn’t, despite how much they wanted to. Under the Human Rights Act (1998), they was a risk Qatada could be tortured and so he remained in the UK. Bearing in mind his numerous arrests and links to al-Qaeda, many deemed Qatada a risk, fearing that he could easily radicalise young adults and help initiate a terror attack in the UK, such as the 7 th July Bombings in 2005, which he spoke in support of. Having seen this, it is hard to see why we would put millions of people at risk, just to protect the one hate filled preacher with extremist links from torture. In saying this, it is important to remember one particular thing: question if the existing restrictions on freedom are in the interests of all. Ronald Reagan, a true believer in freedom, said that “Freedom is the right to question and change the established way of doing things”, and that, even today, remains important. The UK government is a prime example of how the people’s freedom to change and challenge traditions have led to an evolving community which respects modern freedom. With an uncodified constitution, parliament has been able to update legislature to make it more reflective of modern views, such as with the Mental Health Act (2007) which was continuously amended, as it restricted people’s freedom when first written. So, would unrestricted individual freedom serve the interests of all? No. As seen throughout history one person’s lust for freedom often destroys some else’s. Therefore, without completely controlling people’s lives, installing a check on their freedom is the best way forward. Do you agree that unrestricted individual freedom serves the interest of all? Jan Rybojad Isaiah Berlin, a 20 th century philosopher splits the idea of freedom into 2 different concepts. The negative freedom, as he describes in his “Two concepts of Liberty” is “ the degree to which no man or body of men interferes with my activity ”. 23 What this means is basically: “Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins”. For example, nobody should enter my house without my consent or when I get arrested, nobody is allowed to torture me. In contrast the positive freedom is: “ the wish on the part of the individual to be his own master ” 24 , what essentially provides me with the right for self-realisation e.g. by expressing my opinion or independently deciding on my A-Level subjects. Surprisingly, those two liberties can counteract each other. I do not mean here the positive freedom
23 Berlin I (2007) ‘Liberty’ p.169 24 Berlin I (2007) ‘Liberty’ p.178
43
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker