The past fifteen years haven’t been good ones for our democratic rights and civil liberties – to put it mildly. Whether on issues of lifestyle choice, such as smoking and drinking, or our right to freedom of expression, we’ve seen successive governments legislate to influence our behaviour, prescribe what we can say and do, and punish us if we step out of line. It’s not surprising then that many people are beginning to ask where our freedoms going and how do we get them back. One such group is the Liberty League.
Launched by a 21-year-old undergraduate student at King’s College London 18 months ago, the Liberty League describes itself as, “…for students and professionals committed to the defence of freedom”. The League already has over 30 active student societies across the UK, including one started recently at the University of Leeds. I interviewed its founder, Christina Annesley, to find out about the Leeds Liberty League.
1. Why did you think Leeds University needed a Liberty League?
Student politics at Leeds and at many other universities seems to be mostly dominated by radical left-wing societies with the exception of political party associations such as Labour Students and Conservative Future. We felt that there was nowhere for students to go if they did not fall in line with the thinking of radical socialism or weren’t necessarily party affiliated. We wanted to create a group that would come together and spread the ideas of liberty in a non-partisan way, and to reach out to individual students who wanted to challenge the status quo in terms of the acceptance of our gradual erosion of freedom in this country.
2. Who’s behind Leeds Liberty League, and where and when do you meet?
I founded Leeds Liberty League after becoming involved with the national organisation and attending their conferences. I got together with fellow libertarians from both Leeds Conservative Future and Leeds Liberal Youth, with some help from as non-affiliated people I knew from the wider movement both back in Westminster and from surrounding universities. We usually meet every couple of weeks in the Old Bar at our student union to discuss political policies and philosophical ideas in regards to liberty, as well as practical ways in which we can combat the Student Union’s generally illiberal way of thinking. As the new term begins in September we will start holding regular speaker events with politicians and think-tank figures.
3. League supporters generally call themselves as libertarian, how would you define that? And are they predominantly from one particular party or political perspective?
Libertarianism is the political philosophy that holds the individual as sovereign and wishes to minimize the role of the state. We believe that every human being is born free and equal and has the right to be free to do what he or she wishes so long as he or she does not violate the rights of another human being. In practical terms, that means that we tend to be extremely liberal on social issues but conservative on economic ones. Consequentially many of our members are members of the Conservative Party, UKIP or the Liberal Democrats, but equally many are non-party aligned. Libertarianism is an ideology unto itself and therefore Liberty League attracts people from all walks of political life who share a common love of freedom.
4. What kind of reaction have you had from other groups at the university?
The reaction to the idea of a Liberty League has been mixed. We have had successful recruitment from both Leeds Conservative Future and Leeds Liberal Youth, and many people who would not necessarily have described themselves as libertarian before now have come to see how many like-minded students there actually are. Unfortunately the dominance of the political party status quo is still prevalent; the Union recently held a Question Time event and whilst the big three political parties were invited to be represented, Liberty League’s request to be on the panel was declined. The left often dismiss us as ‘basically a Tory group’; we have a long way to go before many students fully understand the concept of libertarianism and how it utterly transcends party politics.
5. What are the League’s aims nationally?
The League aims to act as an organisation and network for societies on campuses the UK and help them to recruit, organise and spread the ideas of liberty and freedom around different parts of the country. It holds two conferences a year with a fantastic line-up of speakers from pro-liberty think tanks and organisations across the country, giving young students and professionals a chance to meet, socialise and network with like-minded libertarians. It also co-ordinates national campaigns for each society to contribute to across the country.
6. Are you supporting any current campaigns at the University or Leeds in general? And what issues do you have your sights on?
The next national campaign is concerning the government’s plain packaging proposals for cigarettes. We are contributing to this in Leeds and are intending to set up tables highlighting the ridiculousness of state-enforced plain packaging by labelling other student essentials such as coffee, condoms and alcohol in a similar way. We will be the first non-left wing political group on campus to actively campaign on campus in this manner. We also have many issues with our own student union to tackle; LUU is notoriously illiberal and has banned both bottled water and Nestle products, with further proposals to restrict free consumer choice currently being lobbied for at the moment. There is a lot to do but we will struggle to fight for freedom and liberty both on campus and nationwide.
Leeds Liberty League meets every second Tuesday from 5pm in the Old Bar at the Leeds University Union. The next meeting will be Tuesday 24th April, followed by a social. For more information contact [email protected]. Also join their group on Facebook and follow them on Twitter.
Paul Thomas is co-founder of The Leeds Salon, which asks ‘What does the Leveson Inquiry mean for Press Freedom?’, at the Carriageworks, Tuesday 17 April. He writes regularly for the Salon’s sister-journal Freedom in a Puritan Age and Culture Vulture.
So boiling this down it’s a bunch of right wing Tories and their mini me Fib Dem mates.
I hope their meetings are more interesting than this interview.
I have a question surrounding the planned effectiveness or even necessity of the Liberty League.
In this interview Christina, you argue that withdrawing Nestle products from LUU and putting regulations on Cigarette displays is illiberal and authoritarian.
That’s fair enough and I understand why many would agree with that.
It would also seem that besides the discussion of these issues amongst your Liberty League colleagues, the main aim of the Liberty League is to campaign and raise awareness of these issues on campus.
Again fair enough, I love a bit of activism as much as the next man.
What I do question is the issues to have decided to campaign on. You plan to centre your campaign for Libertarianism around the products of companies that are widely accepted as having very poor human rights records. With regards to Nestle the student body has twice voted that the Union that represents them should not stock products which are a result of human rights infringements. Considering that ‘Human Rights’ is one of the key and most appealing aspects of your ideology, I just wonder how many students will feel great sympathy for the movement.
The freedom to support non-ethical companies is hardly the most inspiring call to arms for potential Libertarians.
Just something to think about moving forward. I will not comment on why you might have chosen to campaign on issues which coincidentally favour large corporations, over much more widely accepted illiberal issues such as the rights of women or homosexuals both in the UK and abroad.
Do you not think that you are wasting your time and that any true libertarian is too busy enjoying the freedoms they do have – getting drunk, stoned, or numerous other enjoyable activities to bother campaigning. I think you just like attention and to feel important.
Jah Bless
Pretty innacurate description at the top as a group mainly concerned about the civil liberties – they are radical laissez-faire marketeers. One of their members wants to privatise all currencies.
As regarding Question Time, as Christina full well knows us (labour), her (she is chair of conservative future) and the Lib Dems sat down together and agreed who would be on the panel. The 3 parties were, plus two nonpartisan commentators. No other political socities were on it although both the tory and lib dem panel members (Christina and Louis Gill) are members of Liberty League so I think they had enough representation.
Also
Tom
Thank you for your comment. But you need to re-read my opening paragraph. I actually describe the Liberty League as ‘one group’ asking ‘where our freedoms are going and how do we get them back’. Being laissez-faire obviously doesn’t contradict that. It’s unlikely anyone would be for freedom of the individual against the state but for state interference in the workings of the market.
So, my description, rather than being ‘pretty innaccurate’, I think is fine.
Paul
Does the Salon indulge in this sort of tedious student union debate? Aren’t you all bit old for that sort of thing?
Hiw can you be too old to take an interest in your society and how it affects our lives? What an absurd comment, why would you want to waste your time poo poo-ing this with such obtuse remarks? How does the existence of this group make your life any different if you are not interested in it? You could join the debate by making relevant arguments instead of acting like a troll, or just not bother.
Now,now Darryl…calm down…surely I’m at liberty to say what I wish especially in a discussion with libertarians/Conservatives.
The point i am making is like the SWP and their Marxist ilk libertarianism is a childish fantasy and whilst it may be a funparlour game it has no more relevance to my life than – say – Father Christmas.
It’s not that you don’t have the liberty to comment, its that your comment that the people organising here shouldn’t bother to express themselves as they are ‘too old’ was contemptable – its you who are minded to stiffle debate for no coherent reason. Saying it’s Marxist doesn’t really say anything does it? You are not addressing any salient issue in real terms.
Freedom of speech is best suited to those who would use it wisely, as opposed to troll half-witted scorn. If you think liberty is dead, then that is a diabolical state of affairs that any self-respecting person would strive to oppose, even if not for themselves but for their descendants – in what way is the quest for freedom ‘childish’? We are talking about what defines us as cultural beings. You are not saying anything more in substance that you don’t give a toss about the state of humanity. As you have nothing to contribute you resort to throwing an upset about others by trying to ridicule them throwing labels about without any pretence to bother to examine the questions; it is you who act like an indolent child hoping to spoil it for others getting on with it.
Darryl, yawn.
It is typical of ‘freedon fighters’ like you to come out with arrogant nonsense like ‘freedom of speech is best suited to those who would use it wisely’ but which we can assume it is intellectual supermen like you and Tory liars like the LLL.
I’m all for freedom but not for immature groups like this lot who define freedom as only giving a shit about themselves or the freedom to increase the tax burden on the rest us by having the dubious freedom of being addicted to nicotine or being obese.
I was suggesting that the Salon might have better things to debate endlessly than the LLL or indeed the SWP.
Leedshack 1 ” Darryl, yawn. It is typical of ‘freedon fighters’ like you to come out with arrogant nonsense like ‘freedom of speech is best suited to those who would use it wisely’ but which we can assume it is intellectual supermen like you and Tory liars like the LLL. I’m all for freedom but not for immature groups like this lot who define freedom as only giving a shit about themselves or the freedom to increase the tax burden on the rest us by having the dubious freedom of being addicted to nicotine or being obese. I was suggesting that the Salon might have better things to debate endlessly than the LLL or indeed the SWP.”
Why not actually find out what its about rather than presuming these objections – I personally support the freedom to eat and smoke but IMO we must start with better governance over food and drugs in the first place to address misuse. You should raise these points at the discussion table and doubtless it will be explained what this is actually about. It’s not arrogant to point out that freedom of speech is not the same as equality of opportunity for ideas, clearly some content can be objectively dismissed as irrelevant or nothing could survive the opportunity for de-railment by trolls. Its shocking that you don’t even extend freedom of speech to political debate because its too ‘immature’ in your opinion – you have no cohesive position, you want censorship and controls over everything we eat, do and hear – and yet you call me arrogant for suggesting we do give it a hearing – that’s whaty I was talking about, there is a difference between speech for ideas and shouting things down before they are even debated.
If the right to buy kitkats and Highland Spring water at the University are the most serious examples of the erosion of your freedoms then you’re pretty fucking lucky. Try campaigning on issues that matter and you might be taken more seriously.
So this is CoalitionSoc, then?
Hmmm..seems they are Liebertarians…of course this is in the Fib Dem DNA.
Libertarians – prizing the individual over giving a fuck about other people. My rights and liberties and doing what is right for society are irrelevant to them, as they would stomp on anyone in order to get what they want.
Weird – it says the principle is based on JS Mill – ie no harm to others, that’s the basic essence of the group. Anyway, a society has nothing without individual rights – rights are inherrently utlilitarian.
I am very interested in this group if we can start a decent campaign around the liberty to peacefully use drugs. Every single other group is focussed on harm reduction and nobody has recognised that the essential value to be rescued is the threshold for intervention into liberty, this being mainly due to having a festishised debate about ‘legalizing drugs’ when in fact drugs have no legal agency anyway. We see the debate couched in terms where the subject and object of regualtion is reversed. I would say however that we must look at the current proposals on tobacco in context (as well as drink aware initiatives). There is a danger that we start from where we are now and look at such things in isolation as worrying incursions into liberty – in fact these things are all relative, the issue is the relative freedom we experience with access to drugs – and the status quo is untenable and irrational. Given tobacco users enjoy a privlileged status that gives a virtual protection racket to this form of dangerous drug dealing, by complaining about it in isolation it makes no sense. Cannabis smokers for example can go to prison for up to 14 years for growing a plant, but tobacco is marketted as cool.
I can’t bloody stand libertarians. They’re just Tories who like to think they’re a bit more controversial than the free marketeers or the paternalistic old school brigade. I wish they’d be denied the oxygen of publicity, it’s what they love most and they have absolutely nothing to contribute to engaged political discourse.
It’s ironic that they despise the Trots and the Marxists, because they are at least as dogmatic as either of them.
Why not actually find out what its about rather than presuming these objections – I personally support the freedom to eat and smoke but IMO we must start with better governance over food and drugs in the first place to address misuse. You should raise these points at the discussion table and doubtless it will be explained what this is actually about. It’s not arrogant to point out that freedom of speech is not the same as equality of opportunity for ideas, clearly some content can be objectively dismissed as irrelevant or nothing could survive the opportunity for de-railment by trolls. Its shocking that you don’t even extend freedom of speech to political debate because its too ‘immature’ in your opinion – you have no cohesive position, you want censorship and controls over everything we eat, do and hear – and yet you call me arrogant for suggesting we do give it a hearing – that’s whaty I was talking about, there is a difference between speech for ideas and shouting things down before they are even debated.
Daryll, as David points out you and the Marxists meet in some demented political fantasy world.
But liebertarians like you are a mass of obvious contradictions…on one hand you want the freedom to develop lung cancer but on the other want some sort of state goverance to address misuse. It is either freedom of choice to kill yourself free of restraint or it isn’t.
If there are restraints then it is what we have and you can join in that debate any time you want. It’s a free country.
It’s interesting that you dismiss me a troll simply because I dare to challenge your tedious sub Ayn Rayn musings. Her thoughts have little more meaning that L Ron’s nonsense.
Finally, you suggest I want ‘censorship and controls’ but I never said that, you just made it up becuase your fragile intellectual superego can’t stand being challenged. I’m challenging you because you trot out a silly and discredited right wing theory that is immature. It’s called exercising my freedom of speech.
You need to have the reasonable freedom to choose your own recreational/self-harming activities as well as dubious religious cults. Even if you increase your statistical likilihood of getting ill, the alternative would be that your life would be subsumed by compulsory adherence to the latest medical mandate, morning exercise classes to boot. Then you would be over-policed about your environmental impact etc etc
Tell me, what would you do with tobacco and alcohol, given these drugs cause 60 times more harm than all controlled drugs combined?
IMO the only civilised way to address these things is to give people decent neutral information and assume the JS Mill position, yes being ill cost the health service but as David Nutt pointed out, if you control risk then it will have to start with horse riding, climbing etc apart from the fact that you will probably have to become vegetarian, or if a green leaning govt get in, a raw foodist. Because my interest area is drug misuse, I am pragmatic in my freedom seeking agenda, freedom is for me always a relative construct, and what better way than form different scales of intervention for different categories of risk-taking depending on whether the activity causes direct harm to others or just the risk taker.
Fantastic post, leedshack1.
“Sub Ayn Rayn musings”. Quite so.