Anthony Barnett (London, OK): Fresh from the official merger of Charter 88 and New Politics Network into Unlock Democracy, its director Peter Facey sets out his approach in CiF. He is warm and generous towards the achievement of Charter 88 and takes the argument forward in response to Gordon Brown's Green paper. Is the citizens' summit now being planned believable? Peter makes the case for supporting its proposals for direct involvement in an independent spirit. He asks a set of questions including
Will the summit be under pressure to come to the "right" conclusion, or will it be given a free hand to decide both what the purpose of such a statement should be and what should be in it? Fundamentally, will it be free to conclude that a British statement of values is a bad idea?
With respect to what the Minister in charge, Michael Wills, is seeking, Unlock Democracy is surely right to encourage new forms of public involvement with the proviso they are genuine and, indeed, to help make them work so that they are genuine.
But I am worried that on the day that a young woman is given a criminal sentence, albeit suspended, for what seems to be a thought crime; and the day after the government wants to extend what is in effect internment to two months; and when the State is proceeding with the construction of an intrusive database state; there is no protest about what is happening to our civil liberties. Even if a brilliant statement of values does emerge from the summit what should we make of it if, traditional 'values' - whether British or universal - such as freedom of thought, the right not to be jailed without charge, and basic privacy, are sabotaged?
