I think it is time for a summary of the progress we have made towards the fascist state. Note I don’t think we’re quite there yet, but the apparatus is definitely coming along nicely.
First there were CCTV cameras. The UK now has more cameras per head than anywhere else in the world and, as it happens, we have held that record for quite some time now. As with most of the points I shall make in this post, this in and of itself is not a problem. So long as the state can be trusted to pass laws that are in the common interest and, simultaneously, do not subject minorities to the tyranny of the majority, CCTV does not pose a serious problem to liberty.
More recently, and in the name of terrorism prevention, Labour decided it was acceptable to imprison foreign nationals without trial because a secretive part of the government claims to have ‘evidence’ against them. For reasons that I admit appear sensible, the security services (as they are euphemistically called) are unwilling to reveal the evidence: it would give away how they gained it. But that said, there can never (ever) be justification for those who govern us to imprison people without trial.
Imprisonment without trial is only one step away from imprisoning political opponents. Who could claim differently if the Home Office decided that I, or anyone else who had ever criticised the government, was an enemy of the state? Without a trial anyone can be put ‘out of harm’s way’. At the last election the LibDems claimed that their policy of allowing the vote to prisoners was an angle of attack against this very problem writ small. But their policy included those found guilty and imprisoned by their peers: in jury trial.
But jury trial is no longer guaranteed. Again for good reasons, the state considers that lay juries cannot understand the complexity of a fraud trial. I am told this is true and that there have been people against whom the evidence was overwhelming that were acquitted because the jury was confused. The trouble, again, is that the state only need convince the people once that juries don’t work for subsequent erosion of the right to trial by jury to be a whole lot easier. Each time we accept an erosion of our freedom we accept that that erosion will continue.
I have probably said it before, but I think it’s worth repeating: The Freedom of Information Act (FoI), as described, is an oxymoron. Like the Human Rights Act, the FoI is guaranteeing something that, by convention, had been assumed. The Human Rights Act was the first law that told people what they may do, rather than assuming that everything not written into law was allowed by omission. It has been said (by people more eloquent than me) that this is the first sign of a government that is out of control. Giving people ‘rights’ or specific access to ‘information’ implies that there is some need to safeguard those rights.
On the 18 May this year MPs voted on an amendment to the Freedom of Information Act to stop it applying to those we entrust our governance to. Link. Only 12% of Conservative MPs voted on this Bill even though it was raised by one of their number, but that doesn’t excuse them. The only serious party of opposition, the only party that could replace Labour is tacitly supporting the erosion of our liberty and access to information about those who govern for us.
In the future we will have ID cards. This card, which will be the key to access to all parts of modern life, will be a single switch with which the government can erase you. How simple would it be for a future government to introduce ‘bugs’ to the system so that political dissidents’ cards stop working before elections, or before an important protest near the Houses of Parliament?
But the truth is we don’t really need these cards. Already by 2002 most people were captured on CCTV more than 300 times a day. As technology improves these cameras will be able to recognise you. How simple would it be to record the identity of every person who passes by a state-owned CCTV camera so that their whereabouts can be known in case of an accident or crime? If the State knows where you are the entire time, then a government with the less-than-honourable motives would be able to stop you from protesting etc.
Let’s not forget, either, than the Houses of Parliament are already a no-protest zone. The Tiananmen Square of England is the very heart of democracy.
The internet, though, is the surprising end to this list. The internet has grown organically and is not a tool created by governments to bring about some control. This network which allows people around the world to communicate, even with those they have never met before, is a relatively new thing. Just ten years ago most people had no idea what the internet was and virtually no-one relied upon it.
Now many political groups use the internet almost exclusively. Some groups never meet in person. Other groups rely on the internet to organise themselves and would be severely weakened without access to it. So it is important to note how much power the state has over these communication networks.
The Labour government’s fascist Control Orders, which are the latest way of imprisoning people without trial, allow the State to restrict your access to all modern communication methods including the internet. Whether or not you believe in the threat supposedly posed by Echelon, Control Orders allow the State to restrict your access to communication.
In a future where our ability to move about, protest government actions, vote or even communicate can be controlled so easily, we should be building safeguards. Our constitution should be shoring up the right to trial by jury, it should be turning off London’s Congestion Charge cameras outside of operation and private companies should not be required to hand over information about people who have not committed a crime.
It is so very easy, when discussing Civil Liberties, to sound like one of the tin-foil hat brigade, but the dangers are tangible and, aside from getting the wrong party, V for Vendetta is not so unlikely as we’d like to think.
Comments