I haven't been on the site in some time. It was more typical of past debates to be more clear on terminology. In addition, I have not exchanged words with you and wanted to gauge your perceptions on either of these points.
Assessing the different talking points in this debate has led me to the conclusion that your negligence to include a clear definition of freedom (at the most basic level) has limited the likelihood for a clear and logical debate to occur. (perhaps that was your intention)
Freedom is not self explanatory. "Ordinary speech, being careless about details, frequently causes somebody to do something or permits a tree to fall. By failing to discriminate between the deontic, the alethic, and the mechanical, common usage makes the problem of freedom insoluble--or worse, meaningless (Gill 1971)." Your limited viewpoint is the exact reason why much of this debate lacks substance.
To define freedom, three postulates are required:
1. The self-contradictory cannot exist.
2. A concept and its complement exhaust a universe of discourse.
3. Every permission corresponds to a conscious action, and every conscious action can be stated as a permission (Gill 1971).
If I were to engage in your limited view of freedom, I would argue that when people speak of freedom, they mean self-control (Hadamard 1945). Within self-control there is a need for self-consistency therefore, Freedom is decision by necessary norms.
If I were to define liberal democrats using your criterion and search methods, this would lead me to the wikipage titled "liberal democrats"- a UK based political party. Wikipedia lists their platform as follows: constitutional and electoral reform,progressive taxation, wealth taxation,environmentalism, human rights laws, cultural liberalism, banking reform and civil liberties.
Furthermore, their ideology or philosophy is to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which they seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity.
Based on the platform, ideology and definition of freedom as a decision by necessary norms. I would say they are practicing the very decisions to create necessary norms.
Are they afraid of freedom?
Perhaps, however if your intention was to insinuate that being afraid meant that they would not pursue decisions to create necessary norms, I would counter that liberal democrats own platform and ideology stand against that insinuation and therefore are not afraid of freedom.
Gill, John G. (1971) The Definition of Freedom. Ethics 82(1):1-20.
Hadamard, Jacques. (1945) The Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field. Princeton, N.J.
Wikipedia. Liberal Democrats. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Democrats. Accessed online on June 15, 2012.