
Richard Murphy: Passing laws that destroy our freedoms is tyranny
Hundreds of thousands, and maybe more, now have reason to be thankful that protest still creates change.
Then, as if to prove sanity had not returned to the Labour Party, large numbers of its MPs trooped through the lobbies to contentiously vote in favour of declaring an activist organisation a terrorist threat – a move not all MPs or peers agreed with. A step such as this has never previously been seen in the UK.
READ MORE: Details emerge of Scottish arm of new Corbyn project
Almost certainly, the UK Government's action breaches the rights to freedom of expression and association under the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights 1950, which the UK helped draft.
It also seems to violate Articles 19 and 20 of the 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights, of which the UK was a principal author.
Bizarrely, on the day this action was approved in the Commons, Yvette Cooper wore a sash celebrating the Suffragette movement which won votes for women after a campaign in which people died.
Acts we might now call terrorism took place and serious vandalism, including arson, were committed (contemporary news reports did call them terrorism). Cooper conveniently forgot all that.
By the standards Cooper is now imposing, anyone who supported the Suffragettes at the time, even without taking part in direct action, might today face 14 years in prison.
This new move against the freedom to campaign affects me directly. For the last 25 years, I have been a campaigner above all else.
In the first decade of this century, when I spent much of my time exposing tax abuses in Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man, I became intensely unpopular in those places. Simply by blogging, I proved their tax systems did not comply with EU requirements. All of them were forced to change their laws.
I faced what felt like a fabricated criminal investigation in Jersey at one point, which quietly disappeared after an election.
I also received death threats and more mundane abuse.
The then first minister of the Isle of Man suggested I was mathematically incompetent. My calculations showing the UK was providing his government with half its income to subsidise its tax haven activities were then accepted by the UK Government, which took that money back, saving the UK more than £200 million a year. I didn't even get a note of thanks.
READ MORE: Devolved relations reset with Labour has 'failed', says SNP official
I recount these stories to show I know campaigning comes at a cost. No-one should expect to voice opinions that upset others without anticipating some backlash. That's how we change things. That process is fundamental to democracy.
And, of course, if during a protest someone breaks the law, they should expect prosecution for the crime committed. That's the price of taking action.
But what no-one should expect is to face grossly disproportionate penalties simply for expressing a genuinely held opinion that does not incite violence or threaten human life. Yet such penalties are exactly what UK ministers are now creating.
Ministers probably know convictions under their new law will be rare. Juries often refuse to convict when penalties are wildly inappropriate. People, unlike politicians, generally have a sense of justice.
However, what the Government has done is a sign we are on a perilous path to more draconian measures. How long might it be before suggesting Scotland should be independent is labelled a terrorist threat because it implies the UK should cease to exist?
How long, too, before expressing socialist views is treated the same way? After all, government literature already suggests such views can justify referral to the anti-terrorist Prevent programme.
And might the day come when even questioning 'free market' capitalism is deemed so extreme that it should be outlawed?
To suggest any of these things would once have seemed absurd, but everything has changed. The Labour Government's actions force us to reconsider the world we live in.
We can no longer rely on our right to free speech. We can no longer rely on common sense. Nor can we trust international law or declarations of human rights to protect us.
Now, tyranny is not represented by those who protest, even if they sometimes commit criminal damage (which I do not condone).
Instead, it is undertaken by Cabinet ministers intent on passing laws that destroy our freedoms.
I will continue to campaign. I will continue to protest. I will still raise my voice. I hope others will too.
But people in Scotland have an opportunity denied to those of ethical conscience in England – to leave this desperate Union and recreate in Scotland a country where genuine freedoms exist.
I truly hope that happens, and I will continue to say so.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Leader Live
22 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Court must avoid judiciary being dragged into super juniors ‘political contest'
The three-judge division of the High Court is hearing the case, brought by Sinn Fein TD Pa Daly, who is challenging the attendance of the so-called super junior ministers at Cabinet meetings. On Monday afternoon, the Attorney General (AG) Rossa Fanning told the court that the Constitution does not forbid the attendance of super junior ministers while simultaneously allowing the attendance of the Secretary General and the AG. Mr Fanning, SC for the Government, said Mr Daly is asking the court to write in a new constitutional provisional that is 'simply not contained' in the text. He claimed that Mr Daly is asking the court to enter the 'political thicket' and to intervene in the inner workings of Government. He said that the court ought to resist the applicant's attempt to have the judiciary involved in a political contest being 'played as an away fixture down in the Four Courts'. 'These proceedings are misconceived in a number of respects but there is one fundamental error on which they are premised,' Mr Fanning added. 'The error that affects this case is that he wrongfully conflates the attendance of government meetings with being a government minister on the other. 'The two concepts are entirely distinct. There is a significant difference in legal statutory powers and functions of government ministers on one hand and ministers of state on the other.' He added that statutory powers are delegated to ministers of state, and that the delegation is subject to the government ministers, which means, he added, that ministers of state remain under the supervision of senior ministers. He added that the invitation of super junior ministers to Cabinet meetings is underpinned by legislation, and that Cabinet meetings are one element of government decision making. He added that government policy is not formed at Cabinet in any 'real sense' . 'It is the last stop in the government chain,' he added. Earlier the court was told that super junior ministers are acting as a 'collective authority' with ministers at Cabinet, in breach of the constitution. Sinn Fein leader Mary Lou McDonald and Donegal TD Pearse Doherty were in court on Monday alongside Mr Daly. Mr Daly argues that Article 28 of the Constitution of Ireland limits the number of government members to 15. Sinn Féin are here today to challenge Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael blatant stroke politics. We believe they are playing fast and loose with the Constitution to grease the wheels of their grubby deal with Michael Lowry and load the Cabinet with so-called 'Super Junior' Ministers. Pa… — Mary Lou McDonald (@MaryLouMcDonald) July 7, 2025 The super junior ministers appointed include Fine Gael's Hildegarde Naughton, as well as Independents Sean Canney and Noel Grealish. Fianna Fail's Mary Butler is also a minister of state attending Cabinet. Senior government ministers are appointed by the president of Ireland on the advice of the taoiseach of the day, and with the approval of the Dail. Super junior ministers are appointed by the government on the nomination of the taoiseach. Feichin McDonagh SC told the three judges that the legal basis of their appointment was exactly the same as the other ministers of state who do not attend Cabinet. He added that there is no legal basis for the appointment for 'ministers of state who regularly attend Cabinet'. 'That creature simply does not exist under legislation,' he added. He said he has queried with the respondents about what exactly is a minister of state who regularly attends government meetings. 'One would have thought following exchange of meetings there might be some consensus, but there does not appear to be a consensus,' Mr McDonagh said. He told the court it was not possible to address the issues unless the court knows what a super minister is. 'The designation of super junior by taoiseach was in some way an exercise of executive power of the state,' he added. He said it is suggested in the respondent's affidavit that there is an office called minister of state who regularly attends government, which Mr McDonagh said does not exist. He added that a decision to pay an allowance to super juniors does not change that position. 'Four super juniors now get an allowance and we challenge the provisions in that legislation to allow that,' he added. 'There is minister of state who is told by taoiseach they can regularly attend government (meetings) and if they come into that category they get 16,000 euro a year. 'But it is not an office, not enacted under the constitution and there is no underpinning to suggest that the office is being created.' He also queried the meaning behind the words under Article 4.1, in which it states that the Government shall meet and act as a collective authority. 'What does collective authority do? They meet and with the others (ministers) they collectively act. Who is acting collectively? It is the government along with the super junior ministers,' Mr McDonagh added. 'There will be government decisions taken and government acting collectively. 'In that scenario there are extra individuals who are there present in the counsel of chamber. They are taking a full role in the formulation and formation of government policy, thereby acting as a collective authority and there is no dispute between the parties as to that being what is happening. 'The government is formulating policy and taking countless decisions and undoubtedly purporting to act as a collective authority. 'You cannot unscramble that egg. If you have government meeting with super juniors speaking to perspective government decisions and a consensus is arrived at, that decision is no less than a government decision than one that has been voted on. 'That decision is arrived at following a process of mixing yolks to getting into scramble egg and that cannot be unscrambled.' Earlier, Ms McDonald said the Government has broken the rules. Speaking outside court, Ms McDonald said: 'This is a challenge to a Government who we believe have played fast and loose with the Constitution in a bid to secure a grubby deal with Michael Lowry and to retain office, Fianna Fail and Fine Gael, we believe are acting in defiance of the Constitution. 'There are four so-called super junior ministers who attend Cabinet. The Constitution, in our view, is very clear. The Cabinet amounts to 15 members, and we believe that the Government is breaking the rules. 'They've broken the rules because at all costs, Micheal Martin and Simon Harris wish to remain in government, so they cut this deal, as you know, with Michael Lowry, and we are here now to challenge that action and to seek clarity.' Mr Daly brought the constitutional challenge against the Government in the High Court regarding the appointment of super junior ministers. The case challenges what Mr Daly says is a 'deeply problematic and unconstitutional practice that has taken root in recent decades'. He said: 'This case is a constitutional challenge aimed at protecting the integrity of our system of government under Bunreacht na hEireann with which Fianna Fail, Fine Gael and the Lowry-led Independents are playing fast and loose.'

Leader Live
22 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Unison members accept two-year council pay deal
Cosla offered staff an increase of 4% this year and 3.5% next year, with 83% of Unison members voting in a ballot to accept the offer. Unison Scotland's local government committee chairwoman Suzanne Gens said: 'This pay deal is a crucial step in turning round cuts to council staff pay. 'It gives local government workers some financial security now they know their pay will be higher than inflation over the next couple of years. 'This has only been achieved because of the determination of council workers to demand better.' The union's co-lead for local government David O'Connor said there was 'no room for complacency', despite the offer being accepted. 'Local government has suffered over a decade of cuts,' he added. 'This pay deal shows what can be done when people stand together. Our campaign to protect council services continues.' Scottish Finance Secretary Shona Robison welcomed the news, urging other unions to also accept the offer. 'I am delighted that Unison members have voted to accept this improved pay offer, which will see valued local government workers receive pay increases of 4% in 2025-26 and 3.5% in 2026-27,' she said. 'Although the Scottish Government has no formal role in local government pay negotiations, we recognise the importance of an agreement being reached by Cosla – as the employer – and trade unions. 'I would urge members of Unite and GMB to join Unison members in recognising the clear benefit of this offer so that all workers can get the pay they deserve without delay.'

Rhyl Journal
39 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
Media faces existential threat from ‘thieving' AI, ministers warned
Urgent reform was demanded in Parliament, as ministers were also tackled over Whitehall striking an agreement with a Canadian tech giant that faces legal action by media firms over accusations of large-scale copyright infringement. The call for swift action follows a bitter stand-off in the House of Lords over attempts to prevent the creative industries, including news outlets, being ripped off by machine-learning developers. The controversy centred on fears of AI companies using copyrighted work without permission, with the Government accused of 'supporting thieves'. Responding to a question on the issue in the upper chamber, media minister Baroness Twycross said: 'Trustworthy journalism plays a vital role in our democracy. 'Rapid recent developments in generative AI pose both significant risks and opportunities for news media. 'We are engaging with press stakeholders on this.' She added: 'The Government will support our news media to capitalise on the huge potential benefits of the technology while mitigating its risk.' But deputy chairman of the Telegraph Group, and Conservative peer, Lord Black of Brentwood said: 'AI poses an existential threat to independent media because of the way it scrapes their high quality content without either attribution or payment to those who create it, which is an act of theft, directly threatening the provision of quality news and the jobs of thousands of reporters. 'Is the minister aware that research by market leader, Cloudflare, shows that, for example, for every 73,000 pages of content scraped by Anthropic's AI crawlers from news providers, there's just one single referral back to publishers' websites? 'Does she realise that without this vital traffic, publishers can't sell advertising or subscriptions, and their businesses become unsustainable? 'The free press can't wait years for copyright reform… we were promised immediate action on this issue when the Data Act went through. When will we get some of it?' Responding, Lady Twycross said: 'We want to get this right and for AI to work for everyone. 'All of our work is around protecting rights that already exist for creatives and press and ensuring AI creates new revenue streams for them. 'We are carefully reviewing all the responses to our consultation to ensure any proposals taken forward properly support both AI and creative sectors, including the media.' Filmmaker Baroness Kidron, who has been a leading critic of the Labour administration on the issue, said: 'During the passage of the Data (Use and Access) Bill, the Government asked repeatedly that Parliament trust that they had the interest of UK copyright holders front and centre. 'So can the minister explain why the UK Government has now signed a memorandum of understanding with Canadian AI firm Cohere, when Cohere is facing legal action from 13 news media copyright holders, including The Guardian, Forbes and The Atlantic? 'Does she not agree with me that the Government might better earn Parliament's trust if, instead of rewarding AI companies which infringe copyright with opportunities, that it limited those opportunities and indeed future Government contracts to companies that lawfully license inputs?' Lady Twycross said: 'As I said, we do want to and need to make sure we get this right for everyone. I'm happy to have a conversation with her about the issue she raises.'