The Queen's Speech was the most illiberal for a generation

Appalled by the Hillsborough tragedy? Just think what the police could have done if they had access to the smartphones of the victims on that tragic day. You might not have to wait too long to see this reality

The Queen’s Speech made clear the government would continue to rush The Investigatory Powers Bill through the House of Commons (PA)

The government has announced plans to curtail political speech so that ideas it does not like can be banned in order to protect little children from brainwashing. It followed this up with an announcement of new surveillance powers that would make the country’s ministries world leaders in spying on their own people. The highlight of the speech was a plan to water down the Human Rights Act, which is to be replaced, after consultation, by ‘common sense’. Of course, I am paraphrasing the Queen’s Speech, but only just. This speech by a government on the ropes was the most illiberal for a generation.

The speech had the whiff of desperation about it: gone is the youthful David Cameron who promised he’d govern from the centre in his place a Prime Minister torpedoed by a rash promise to hold a referendum on Europe, a rash promise to expand the surveillance powers of the state over ordinary citizens and an even more rash promise to repeal the Human Rights Act. Rather than leading the Tories, the Prime Minister has become a prisoner of its more extreme demands. In British politics, civil liberties have become the hand you play when you have no other cards in the deck.

The Queen’s Speech made clear the government would continue to rush The Investigatory Powers Bill through the House of Commons. This Snoopers' Charter will give the British government powers of surveillance that go far beyond anything seen in any democracy anywhere on earth. Many of the powers in this bill have been rejected or curtailed by other democracies – including the US Government – as too sweeping and authoritarian. Any UK tech firm with over 30,000 customers can be given a secret order to spy on its customers. ISPs will be forced to hack their customers and the police will be given powers to access your internet browsing history. Appalled by the Hillsborough tragedy? Just think what the police could have done if they had access to the smartphones of the victims on that tragic day.

How many times do we need to have evidence that extensive state surveillance powers are misused? Does anyone think it was legitimate for the Metropolitan Police to place comedian Mark Thomas under surveillance? He was watched by the anti-extremism unit, the same officers that are meant to protect us from neo-fascists and jihadis. After her son was murdered on the streets of south London, the police put Baroness Doreen Lawrence under surveillance. They both join a list of prominent Britons that the police have spied on, from politicians, to lawyers and environmental activists. Our last hope in defeating this draconian legislation is that decent Tory backbenchers wake up to the threat this poses to public trust in the police. One can also hope that the Labour Party works with the SNP to secure crucial amendments to remove the bulk data capture powers in the Bill.

The proposals on extremism are dystopian. Britain’s leading free speech groups say the government’s plans to tackle extremism through a ‘new civil order regime’ could undermine the very values the government says it is aiming to defend. As English PEN notes, extremism banning orders could mean political activists could be outlawed in the future. Unpleasant extremist groups such as Hizb ut-Tahrir, who dislike democracy, but step back from directly advocating violence, would be banned. We could see the return of the absurd situation that prevented the voice of leading Irish Republicans such as Gerry Adams from appearing on television. Silencing ideas never works, winning the battle of ideas, although tougher, is the only way to tackle extremism. The government isn’t even trying.

The Prime Minister made his intentions clear when he announced the new law stating: “for too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone.”

One of the greatest achievements of our common law is our presumption of innocence. Britons can obey the law and be left alone by the state. Cameron wishes to remove this presumption, one of our ancient liberties. Much of these anti-extremism and surveillance measures are likely to be illegal under the Human Rights Act, which is perhaps why David Cameron wishes to abolish it.

An argument could be made for the replacement of the Human Rights Act if the government wished to give the people of Britain a written constitution that stated our rights, limited the power of the executive, and re-emphasised our ancient liberties secured from despotic kings. It doesn’t. The government wants to water down our commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights so laws they rush through parliament to appease unruly backbenchers can’t be challenged. It is perhaps too late in his career for David Cameron to realise that he needs to stand up for the centrist values, including a respect for liberty that helped him become Prime Minister. In the meantime, the fight for liberty in the UK is going to become a tougher battle.