A bill of whose rights?

Gordon Brown has kicked off a “cross-party” debate on reforms that could include a bill of rights. Now this is hardly the first time this has been raised, and I am not one to get too uptight about whether or not our constitution should be written. After all, it is arguing semantics when so much of our constitution actually is written, albeit in scattered and varied places: Acts of Parliament, documented protocols, recorded historical precedent and so on. However, I am concerned at who will be writing the Bill of Rights. “Rights” is a word bandied around too often without the corollary “responsibilities”, especially when used by the Left.

A deeper concern, though, is my fear that the bill will be constructed to define what I have a right to do, rather than encoding limitations on what the state can and should do. I can foresee a bill full of platitudes towards freedom but “balanced” with “fairness” (public policy’s great movable feast) and security, including the need for the state to continue to erode my ability to go about my lawful business without being hassled for an ID card or other devices, physical or legal, which serve only to make my life more difficult without giving rise to an ounce of sweat for the criminal classes.