Sheeple

This article reports the results of a survey that details how far the English people have fallen, in terms of giving up their freedoms in return for an illusion of security:

"The survey found seven in every 10 people think compulsory identity cards for all adults would be "a price worth paying" to reduce the threat of terrorism. Eight in 10 say the authorities should be able to tap the phones of people suspected of involvement in terrorism, open their mail and impose electronic tagging or home curfews."

"In 1990, 9% of adults thought the police should be allowed to question suspects for up to a week without letting them see a solicitor. In the latest interviews, this nearly trebled to 25%."

I wonder how fast the respondents' views would change when it's THEIR mail being opened, or phones being tapped, or travel being restricted. Of course, by then it would be far too late, so they would have no choice but to comply or be thrown in jail as a "suspected terrorist" (with no hope of seeing their lawyer for "up to a week"). After all, peasant, why are you worried if you have nothing to hide?

I am heartened to see that there is at least one voice in the wilderness over there decrying this madness:

"Conor Gearty, professor of human rights law at the London School of Economics and joint author of the report's civil rights chapter, said: "The very mention of something being a counter-terrorism measure makes people more willing to contemplate the giving up of their freedoms. It is as though society is in the process of forgetting why past generations thought these freedoms to be so very important.""

Sadly, I think he is all too correct, but is too late to stop the onrushing tidal wave of freedom loss in England. We here in America can only use this as an example of what will happen if we stop fighting for even an instant. I don't think I'm being too melodramatic here, either, especially with the likes of Pelosi, Feinstein, Schumer, et al, running Congress for the foreseeable future, as well as the selective interpretations of the Constitution from Attorney General Gonzales (see below).