Economic inequality is, in substantial part, a political phenomenon
Quote of the day
Email & RSSSign up to oD's editorial summaries email:
openDemocracy likes:
NavigationThe World
Our writers |
 |
Security or Liberty?
Posts: Joined: 2004-02-22
In a speech yesterday, the British Home Secretary made the following statement:
Sometimes we may have to modify some our own freedoms in the short term in order to prevent their misuse by those who oppose our fundamental values and would destroy all of our freedoms
Amongst the "modifications" desired were: the lowering of the burden of proof when it comes to arresting terrorist suspects, and the ability to deport people to countries where they run a substantial risk of being ill-treated and even tortured.
This kind of talk scares me. It's not that I don't think strong measures are needed to deal with the threat of terrorism, it's just that - given the record of this government - I'm worried about the abuse of power this would lead to. The government is under pressure to look "tough" on this issue, and lowering the standard of proof required will almost inevitably lead to innocent people being either arrested, or deported to countries where they may be tortured and even killed.
Sadly, the idea that freedom is a luxury we can't afford right now is gaining ground across the western world - whether in the curbs to speech and action or the wilful disregard of human rights in places like Guantanamo.
Is this an inevitable consequence of the struggle against terrorism, of just an example of power-hungry politicians trying to throw off the shackles of public accountability?
Submitted on Wed, 2006-08-09 16:15
Re: Security or Liberty?
Matt,
That security trumps freedom is simply a fact, current situations i.e., 'terrorism' only magnify what is already a reality.
Told you before, Hobbes kicks JSM's ass on human nature. Pity though.
Re: Security or Liberty?
Chris,
That security trumps freedom is simply a fact
But to what extent? And, given the abuse of power such curtailments of our liberty can lead to, can it really be deemed security?
Re: Security or Liberty?
Matt,
It's a tough one. For mine, the burden of proof is reasonably clear cut. It should not be lowered as that would be disastrous.
As for the deportations, I am not so sure. It is obvious that terrorism can thrive in the liberal environment. The readiness with which British were prepared to tolerate the intolerant was largely responsible for the phenomenon of Londonistan. If they were less hung up on ultra liberal readings of human rights laws and more concerned for the welfare of their citizens a lot of the issues currently faced by Britain could've been largely avoided.
Should protection of human rights in their most liberal readings be applied to those that preach hate and prepared to deny a lot more basic human rights to me and you?
This is where in my opinion Britain has lost its way as it's commonly held that the way to prove the human rights credentials is to extend tolerance to the criminal and the intolerant at any cost. Often at the expense of general public.
Re: Security or Liberty?
Iljay,
Should protection of human rights in their most liberal readings be applied to those that preach hate and prepared to deny a lot more basic human rights to me and you?
Yes - because I don't trust any official body with the power to decide who is or isn't worthy of protection from arbitrary uses of authority.
The ECHR holds the government to act openly and within the law. Whenever we here about a prisoner's human rights getting in the way of some action or another it means that what the government wanted to do was technically illegal. If that's the case then it's the laws that need changing and not the human rights protection we have.
We cannot deport people to countries where they might be tortured or killed because all human life is sacred - that's what ultimately separates us from those who preach hatred and violence. It needs to be a fundamental principle of a liberal and democratic society, or else, in the long-run, we're all screwed.
Re: Security or Liberty?
Matt,
We cannot deport people to countries where they might be tortured or killed because all human life is sacred - that's what ultimately separates us from those who preach hatred and violence. It needs to be a fundamental principle of a liberal and democratic society, or else, in the long-run, we're all screwed.
I love how naive you are. I know some people that have claimed political asylum and housing benefits in UK under pretext that they would be tortured and possibly killed in Latvia for being Russian. Now nobody got killed in Latvia for being Russian. It was simple bullshit designed to take advantage of liberal laws in UK. And you paid for it.
Just because Amnesty says some country practices torture doesn't mean that torture would apply to this particular individual. Otherwise anyone from the third world that sets foot on the British soil should get asylum because potentially they could face torture back home. This is simply moral high-horsing and totally impractical.
As for that's what ultimately separates us from those who preach hatred and violence. You are correct of course. But don't you worry; they know it just as well as we do and take full advantage of it too.
Re: Security or Liberty?
Iljay,
I love how naive you are.
Thank you.
I'm not suggesting that we simply take people's word for it when they claim they will be tortured - obviously it has to be a credible worry in order for it to be considered.
Re: Security or Liberty?
Matt,
obviously it has to be a credible worry in order for it to be considered.
Establishing such credibility can be impossible. Australia got so much bad press for tough asylum laws and mind you some of it was justified. On the other hand what can the government do when people arrive in the country after deliberately destroying their passports. Establishing a person's identity in such conditions can prove impossible. It is not as if we can just dial up our friendly archive in Iran and ask for such and such.
In a well publicised case Hirschi Ali claimed Dutch asylum and citizenship by simply lying that she was from Somalia even though she lived in Kenya for a number of years. That is a former Dutch MP, a well known public figure and she got away with it.
Re: Security or Liberty?
Matt,
I have to say that I agree with the minister. I understand your fears, but our laws were set up for the benefit of our democracy and our people. For people hostile to our societies, these laws make it quite easy for them to thrive.
I realized this with the 9-11 hijackers. All of the fruits of American society made it easy for them to attack America. We created that facility through our products and services and open society. They used our cell phones and computers to communicate the planning. Implanted themselves in our societies to execute it. Enrolled themselves in our flight schools to get the training that they couldn't in their own homelands. With this Come-To-America-And-Just-Add-Water strategy, all they needed to start World War 3 was a carton of box cutters from WalMart. $5.39
As long as this threat exists, I don't think we should make it so easy on them.
I understand that this is theoretically fumbling with the lid of Pandora's box, but if your society is as vigilant as mine is against governmental diminishment of individual liberty, the people are already watching to make sure those new laws are not suddenly applied to people who are simply voicing their displeasure over the new poll tax.
Re: Security or Liberty?
Jay,
if your society is as vigilant as mine is against governmental diminishment of individual liberty, the people are already watching to make sure those new laws are not suddenly applied to people who are simply voicing their displeasure over the new poll tax.
That's just it - what the government are asking for is essentially a waver of democratic accountability. If they're not called upon to prove whether people are terrorists or not then how are we to judge their innocence?
One of the first debates I got into on this site was over the detainment of foreign nationals in British prisons - individuals held, without charge, for three or four years. At no point did the government prove that these people were a danger to us, or had any involvement in terrorist activities. When some of the "evidence" collected against them was released it was laughable - truly laughable.
Guantanamo is the same: how many of the people confined there have proved guilty of any crimes?
Re: Security or Liberty?
Matt,
It is not possible for me to say that your fears are unjustified. This is just one of those situations where you have to fear foreign terrorism more than you fear your own countrymen. I have made that adjustment. I consider the Brits to have a great track record in terms of promoting and protecting individual liberties, so I think you might be overreacting--but not irrationally.
I will stick to the example of the 9-11 hijackers to keep things neat: They had no cache of C-4. They were not stockpiling weapons. There was no evidence to detain these men at all by our Western standards. They might have had a bad attitude towards Americans, but this isn't Saddam Hussein's Iraq and you can't get thrown in jail for your political beliefs.
A flight instructor in Arizona ran across some of these men. He notified federal agents that there were hostile men in his flight school that were not interested in learning how to land a plane, they only wished to fly it in a straight line. He specifically told an agent "don't you realize that a plane loaded with fuel is as powerful as any bomb".
Many people consider this to be an intelligence failure on the part of the US government, that a mere flight instructor foresaw what was about to happen and tipped off the government, and the government did nothing. However, the government could do nothing. In our society at that time you could not arrest someone for suspicious activity. By the legal standards of our society, it was not possible to stop these men.
The result was thousands dead, and an excrutiating national emotional trauma that led to a poorly planned war in Iraq, and a new roiling of Muslim-West tensions. If I could surrender a few of my personal liberties to prevent that from happening again, it is a minor sacrifice. If the primary victims of these new laws are Muslims, then Muslims need to learn to do more to combat terrorism in both their homelands and their adopted countries.
The big news in America this week is 17 foreign exchange students from Egypt. They came to study at a university in Montana, but only six of them reported to the university. The other 11 disappeared. The F.B.I. has stated that they do not think the men to be dangerous, but that they wish to find them immediately. One has just been arrested in Minneapolis (Minnesota), and will promptly be deported, along with the others when found. Such is the life that Muslims have created for themselves. So be it.
I rest my case. Not because I consider this debate over, but because I need to get to work. Talk at 'cha later.
Re: Security or Liberty?
Jay,
This is just one of those situations where you have to fear foreign terrorism more than you fear your own countrymen.
It's not my fellow countrymen I worry out - it's the damn politicians that are the problem.
Maybe it's different for you in the US: You've got a Constitution, Bill of Rights and even a healthy system of checks and balances. We don't.
As I've said, I'm all for measures to prevent terrorism. But what the government are asking for here is essentially unchecked power - the ability to arrest and detain people indefinitely, without ever having to prove to anyone that they're guilty of anything.
They don't even want to debate it. When Blair called for an increase in the length of time the police can detain something suspect of terrorism without charge the only argument he put forward was: The police want it.
I suppose, when it comes down to it, my problem is that I simply don't trust this government to fight terrorism.
Re: Security or Liberty?
Matt,
Maybe it's different for you in the US: You've got a Constitution, Bill of Rights and even a healthy system of checks and balances. We don't.
This is a smashing point. For some reason I reflexively consider the denizens of The Mother Country to be my political equals. I have to be reminded that you live in a kingdom.
(Doesn't "UK" stand for "Ultra-Kool"?)
Message was edited by: jayfromtexas
Re: Security or Liberty?
I understand your concern about possible infringment of civil rights. But I think you are needlessly concerned. My reading of this, is that they don't want to have to wait for you to set off a bunch of bombs before they are allowed to go and arrest you. I thinka much bigger problem in England is their prison situation. Basically, unless you kill someone in England, you are out in no time at all. I suspect thats the real reason for deportation rather then imprisonment.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,29389-2207722,00.html
Regarding Guantanamo. This really is a problem. The people there don't fall into the POW catagory, and yet the civil system isn't really set up for them either. Certainly these people who are not Americans should not be granted the rights of citizens, but what to do about them, I don't know.
Re: Security or Liberty?
...
Re: Security or Liberty?
Iron Mike,
["Iljay is absolutely right. Every arab (and Persian)state in the ME is a basket case and primarly because they are culturally trapped in the 7th century by an Islamic Fascist ideology".]
And what ideology is Israel trapped in when it oppresses the Palestinians by occupying their territory in defiance of UN Resolution 242, dating back nearly forty years? Is this Neocon Fascist 21st Century ideology?
Iron Mike, you are as one sided as ever.
Oh, and just another point whilst we're on about mad ideology and 'basket' cases. The Christian Right that turned out in large numbers to support Bush and who also support Israel, believe that the Jews in Israel must either perish or convert to Christianity, at the Second Coming of Christ, so that they can enjoy the Rapture and all go to heaven.
It sounds almost pre-historic, compared to anything from the 7th Century.The idiots that believe in it are truly a basket cases and this includes President Bush.
|
|
|
