Guardian UK: The threat from terrorism does not justify slicing away our freedoms

The threat from terrorism does not justify slicing away our freedoms


Britain is now one of the world's most spied-upon societies, where such ancient rights as habeas corpus are hacked to bits

Timothy Garton Ash
Thursday November 15, 2007
The Guardian


Smiley swirled the last of the brandy in his balloon glass and muttered: "We've given up far too many freedoms in order to be free. Now we've got to take them back." That legendary spymaster's warning about the over-intrusive, over-mighty national security states that we in the self-styled "free world" built up during the cold war was delivered in John le Carré's novel of 1990, The Secret Pilgrim. But instead of taking those freedoms back, British people have lost more of them. Across the western world, vastly more personal information is held on individuals by states and private companies; ancient liberties are curbed, people detained without trial, free speech stifled.

Shamingly, among the very worst offenders, the most careless with its citizens' liberties, the most profligate in surveillance, is the British state. Once proud to style itself "mother of the free", Britain has the most watched society in Europe. The country that invented habeas corpus now boasts one of the longest periods of detention without charge in the civilised world. And the guardians of national security want to make that even longer. Yet these same guardians cannot detect illegal immigrants working in their own offices (and even, in one case, reportedly helping to repair the prime minister's top-security car), nor detain a terrorist suspect (who turned out to be a wholly innocent Brazilian) without shooting him in the head.

A compulsion to legislate ever more new restrictions is combined with paroxysms of staggering inefficiency. Can anyone think of a better formula for sacrificing liberty without gaining security? Smiley must be turning in his grave. Or if, as is sometimes rumoured, he is still living quietly in Cornwall under another name, then we need to hear his voice again: "We are giving up far too many freedoms in order to be free. We must take them back."

The salami-slicing of Britain's civil liberties, including the right to privacy, has at least two causes. One is the spectacular growth, since Smiley's day, of the technologies of information, communication, observation and data registration. The other is the threat of international terrorism, especially jihadist terrorism, made dramatically visible by the New York, Madrid and London bombings. Even without the atrocities of 9/11 and 7/7, there would have been a vast growth in the personal information stored in computer servers, mobile phone records, credit-rating databanks, CCTV videos and the like. Even without that explosion in the technological possibilities for state and private Big Brothering, such terrorist attacks would have provoked a tightening of security.

It is the combination of the two which makes this so alarming. And Britain has the grisly distinction of leading the democratic world on both fronts. The official information commissioner, Richard Thomas, says the country has already sleepwalked into a surveillance society. .....(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2211272,00.html

to the House of Commons. Britain is indeed becoming a "tight little island." I can imagine, however, the reaction in this country if we have another major attack - we "ain't seen nothing yet." The Democratic Congress won't save us from a Patriot Act On Steriods - anymore than they have taken us out of this war.

have enough Terrorist prevention laws in place already.

While the Conservatives are normally those who say "we have to be tough", and are suspicious of people arrested, they are now officially against extending the limit of how long terrorist suspects can be imprisoned without charge (now 4 weeks - Labour wants to increase that to 8). When the Tories have finally decided to go for the 'preserve ancient liberties' line, while Labour wants to lock people who should be presumed innocent up, you know things have really changed in the fundamental outlooks.

Having said that, I feel the Tories would be eager to lock people up, introduced new laws etc. if they were in power. The Lib Dems, and the Scottish and Welsh nationalists, are far more trustworthy when it actually comes to wanting to preserve (or regain) liberties.

For instance, the "Serious and Organised Crime Act", which you might think was used to make, uh, 'serious and organised crime' harder, can be used to fine a single man for parking a large truck at the entrance to Downing Street.