Quick, name a nation whose proud democratic traditions are under attack from a leader who's using the threat of terrorism to justify the restriction or even elimination of vital freedoms. Hint: It invaded Iraq in 2003.

America? Nope, it's Tony Blair's Britain. As described in this article in the Independent by Henry Porter (via Londonist), it's rapidly changing from a free and open society to a tightly controlled one, if not actually a police state. Much of what Porter describes is so far beyond anthing Bush would even dream of trying in America, let alone what he could actually get away with, that it makes controversial policies like the NSA wiretaps seem trivial by comparison. Examples:

The right to a jury trial is removed in complicated fraud cases and where there is a fear of jury tampering. The right not to be tried twice for the same offence — the law of double jeopardy — no longer exists. The presumption of innocence is compromised, especially in antisocial behaviour legislation, which also makes hearsay admissible as evidence.

Porter also describes how "control orders" can be used to prevent a terrorist suspect "from moving about freely and using the phone and internet, without at any stage being allowed to hear the evidence against him — house arrest in all but name." This might sound analogous to America's detention of José Padilla. But Padilla appears to have been a singular case, and in any event, he has since been charged and is receiving a proper trial. British authorities, on the other hand, aren't only going after suspected terrorists. Increasingly, they're punishing people who just rub them the wrong way:

Freedom of speech is attacked by Section Five of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, which preceded Blair's Government, but which is now being used to patrol opinion. In Oxford last year a 21-year-old graduate of Balliol College named Sam Brown drunkenly shouted in the direction of two mounted police officers, "Mate, you know your horse is gay. I hope you don't have a problem with that." He was given one of the new, on-the-spot fines — £80 — which he refused to pay, with the result that he was taken to court. Some 10 months later the Crown Prosecution Service dropped its case that he had made homophobic remarks likely to cause disorder.

More generally, Porter writes, British police are using ASBO's — Anti-Social Behavior Orders — to stamp out unwanted conduct without the hassle of charging people with crimes and providing them due process of law:

The actions which cause the trouble do not have to be illegal in themselves before an Asbo is granted and the court insists on the cessation of that behaviour — which may be nothing more than walking a dog, playing music, or shouting in the street. It is important to understand that the standards of evidence are much lower here than in a normal court hearing because hearsay — that is, rumour and gossip — is admissible. If a person is found to have broken an Asbo, he or she is liable to a maximum of five years in prison, regardless of whether the act is in itself illegal. So, in effect, the person is being punished for disobedience to the state.

ASBO's were devised in 1998 as a well-intentioned response to vandalism, theft, and abusive behavior. But as is the often case with new laws, they are being used to target an ever-increasing range of conduct, including political protest.

I've blogged before about Britain's nanny-state tendencies. Sadly, it seems to be progressing beyond annoying restrictions on things like knife ownership and driving speeds, to curtailing the sort of basic civil liberties that everyone depends on, every day. In short, this article scared and depressed me.