I’m reading The Illuminatus! trilogy at the moment. It’s a book written by two guys who took way too much Acid during the sixties. It’s all about cabals who try to control the world. Stuff you read fairly regularly by authors like Dan Brown. So there’s no factual content whatsoever. As such, these guys are free to contemplate the doomsday scenario that would lead to totalarian government, which reads as
More stringent security measures. Universal electronic surveillance. No-knock laws. Stop and frisk laws. Government inspection of first-class mail. Automatic fingerprinting, photographing, blood tests, and urinalysis of any person arrested before he is charged with a crime. A law making it unlawful to resist even unlawful arrest. Laws establishing detention camps for potential subversives. Gun control. Restrictions on travel.
Apart from “inspection of first-class mail” and “unlawful to resist even unlawful arrest” the U.K. government has fulfilled every other criteria. In fact there is automatic fingerprinting and photographing of everyone (a.k.a. ID cards), not just persons arrested. And the unspoken approval for Guantanamo Bay is an extra-legal establishment of camps for potential subversives.
It really is scary.
I can’t give you an op-ed piece on how I think that this is all bad. Nor can I give an insightful comentary on how these protective laws are good. I feel that they’re bad….and some tripped out authors have given a list of things that can “only” (in the book) be enforced by some evil cabal. But we’re here. Feels like a crossroads to me. This could all work out fine, or it could turn into a Germany circa 1939 situation.
The question for me is, who is going to choose which road to go down? If a politician chooses, we’ll get more survailance etc… because this is the easy road. It may, or may not, improve “security”. But if a politician dosn’t choose this road they’ll be accused of being “soft” on terrorism (notice I don’t quote/unquote the word terrorism. The terrorism is real, just vastly overstated.). We need a statesman, in any European country to take the other road and offer an example to the politicians. A road that might get a lot worse before it gets better. Someone with an actual philosophy and backbone.
I just don’t see that someone at the moment. Colm MacCarthaigh once told me that if you don’t agree with the current political status-quo it is your responsibility to run for office. That democracy is a privilege not a right. And privileges come with responsibilities…..
Not sure where this brings me.
Update: Just got this joke from a friend.
New U.S. anti-terror bill published in C
if (person = terrorist) {
punish_severely();
} else {
exit(-1);
}
For those of you who know nothing about C, = is an assignment not a
comparison.
You’re turning into David Ike. The lizard people are coming for you.
I’d have to agree with colmmacc, you have to run for office. Obviously then, you think of suitability for office, whether you think you could do a good job. But how many other politicians ran for office for the same reason, and are now regarded as corrupt? Is the system interested in philosophy and backbone, or in self preservation?
It might just be that the system corrupts or neutralises anyone who attempts to change it, from inside or out. Is corruption the price to pay for a peaceful existence?
Or, on the other hand, everything is fine, and the governments are only acting in our best interests. How dare we question anything. Apologies for my cliched post, shouldn’t even bother thinking about this stuff.
Re the Guantanamo thing, in fairness to the UK, they have expressed reservations about it before.
Re the rest of it, there does seem to be a lot more surveillance and such like. One thing that does spring to mind is that you don’t make a direct link between this increase and a decrease in democracy. Ie, what aspect of the surveillance is stopping peoples’ freedom of choice to vote for someone who’ll get rid of it all, if that’s what they want?
I don’t think its as simple as voting for someone to take away all the things which infringe on privacy and civil liberty. A sizeable number of people ( you might even say a majority ) will feel that this increase in surveillance doesn’t bother them, doesn’t affect them, is a minor inconvenience, or is on balance, doing more good than harm. Are they right to think this? Its obviously impossible that people have been conditioned to think like this. Maybe there is nothing to worry about. Maybe for every extra law/regulation/restriction which improves peoples lives, its worth tolerating another few which make no sense.
Sorry, forgot to add that perhaps a benevolent dictatorship is the best way out of this mess.
Interesting post, and Dave C is correct to point out that surveillance alone doesn’t prevent citizens from voting for politicians who campaign on the basis that they will limit the extent to which peoples privacy can be invaded.
What irritates me is this extreme argument of “If you are restricting National ID cards, you are leaving our country wide open to terrorists”. It’s a fucked up statement cause it implies that 1) ID cards protect the country, which they don’t , and 2) There is no other alternative.
The goal of terrorist group is to use irregular acts of violence to ensure that a country is in a state of fear. The reason you see these Terrorist clips of some dickhead in a cave in Iraq shouting “Death to Britain” is because the terrorists use those videos as an alternative. When people are afraid, threats are just as effective as real strikes, in that they both achieve the goal, in this case , to scare the shit out of the public.
Here is where the politicians chime in, they exacerbate the publics fears by saying things like National ID cards are necessary to prevent attacks. They constantly remind you of two things
1) You should be afraid
2) You’re safe, but only as long as you’re voting for us.
“Those who trade freedom for security lose both and deserve neither” is something of a bumper sticker, but it highlights a point. We could stop drug trafficking in Ireland by insisting on anal cavity searches on everyone who arrives in Ireland by any means, and blocking the coastline, but at what cost?
The threat of terrorism is minor in comparison with the other, far more likely threats to your life while living in Britain. Most people have an incorrect perception of probability, thats why they play the lotto. That’s why people are scared getting on the Tube. That’s why people worry about flying into New York in September.
What I don’t like to see is disproportionate intrusive security measures brought in to combat threats that are far far less likely than a car crash, or food poisoning, or even plain old “getting beaten to death while outside a nightclub”.
Some interesting points there Des. Good post btw Aidan.
I do appreciate that folks will vote based on their personal perception of security issues and situations, and how they feel the recipients of their votes will address whatever concerns they have about same.
But assuming we’re accepting that people aren’t being forced to vote a particular way, it gets into very grey territory. It might be difficult to define at precisely what point peoples’ free will when it comes to democracy is being compromised.
Phil wrote, “Its obviously impossible that people have been conditioned to think like this.” I believe this is where you are wrong. We have been conditioned by the constant blather from the media and politicians. Susie