Tag surveillance

No Sex, Please, We’re British

The libertarian magazine Reason has a guest column from Brendan O’Neill, who is one of the editors of the British political commentary website Spiked, wherein O’Neill talks about a current news story in the U.K. about a woman who was issued an “ASBO” (anti-social behavior order) because her neighbors complained that she made too much noise when having sex. She was recently arrested for violating the ASBO for, well, you can guess.

Giggle and titter about that as you will, O’Neill uses this case to illustrate the extent to which the U.K. has gone far beyond the “Nanny State” and descended into an Orwellian nightmare of a police state so intent on imposing social order that it has resorted to arresting people for loud sex. (You can see how this criticism would be very popular with libertarians, I trust). The British, after all, are the most surveilled people on Earth, with literally millions of closed-circuit television cameras situated in every imginable nook and cranny to constantly monitor public spaces. The ASBO, introduced in the mid-1990s was introduced as an effort to rein in street gangs and other hooliganism that run rampant in British cities, but has become a readily-abused law that can be applied to just about anything anyone doesn’t like and has created situations like people being arrested for wearing “threatening” hats or hoodie sweatshirts. And last week, you may recall, I linked to a story about London police similarly abusing an anti-terrorism law to randomly stop and search 170,000 people in 2008 without prosecuting a single terrorist.

O’Neill thus paints a picture of today’s average British citizen as something akin to the residents of the former East Germany — cowering in fear of the police and of neighbors who might rat them out to the authorities at any time, for any reason (including revenge or spite), encouraged to spy on one another. Recently BoingBoing featured some brilliantly scathing send-ups of the “see something, say something” poster campaign going on in the U.K. right now.

But this isn’t simply the ranting of a libertarian critic. A post at Slashdot yesterday links to a new report commissioned by a cybersecurity firm called Cryptohippie that ranks the nations of the world with regard to “police state” conditions based on a meta-analysis of criteria collected by a range of international privacy and civil rights interest groups such as EFF, EPIC, and Freedom House. The Cyberhippie report (available here as a PDF) concludes that the U.K. is Number Five in the world for police state restrictions and incursions on personal liberty. (Number One is China).

Why should we Americans care? We’re Number Six.

numbersix

What I found particularly intriguing and disturbing about O’Neill’s article is the pull quote from George Orwell’s “1984″ that he uses to introduce the article:

“Unlike Winston, [Julia] had grasped the inner meaning of the Party’s sexual puritanism. It was not merely that the sex instinct created a world of its own which was outside the Party’s control and which therefore had to be destroyed if possible. What was more important was that sexual privation induced hysteria, which was desirable because it could be transformed into war-fever and leader-worship.”

In this country, the idea of the “nanny state” is often used to represent a collection of ideas and opinions that blame “political correctness” on liberals, but in truth the imposition of rigid social order and overbearing morality is a traditional behavior of the right, and the American Right’s crusades to oppose gay marriage and civil rights, to roll back affirmative action, to ban abortion, and a host of other social issues are part and parcel of the traditional right’s activities. A book called “The Conservative Nanny State” considers the real agenda behind “nanny state” and/or “police state” behavior and tries to pull back the curtain of deception to show how the creeping spectre of an American police state is the doing of the conservative movement.

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

How To Create Terror

bobby

You could strap a belt full of sticks of C4 and a detonator on your waist and blow yourself up on a crowded bus. Or, you could do what the London Metro Police have done: under the rubric of the so-called “Section 44″ anti-terror law, London police stopped and searched more than 170,000 people in 2008. Of those 170,000 stopped, only 65 were actually arrested under suspicion of terrorist activities. However, apparently nobody at New Scotland Yard, the Ministry of Justice, or the Home Office was able or willing to say if any of those 65 arrests resulted in convictions, which almost assuredly means that NONE of those 65 people were convicted of being terrorists.

A couple of years ago, I ranted a bit about the random bag searches that the MBTA police were conducting as an “anti-terrorism” measure, and what I said about the T cops then applies to the London police now. By abusing their powers for the sake of creating a good show of things, or by misapplying the law as a catch-all to deal with any situation that doesn’t neatly fit into a category of actual crime, not only do the London police diminish the value of actually looking for real terrorists, they are creating their own version of terror through the intimidation of the general public. The people of the U.K. do not have the same broad set of constituional protections of civil liberties that we have in the U.S. in the first place, and modern Britain seems particularly fond of an astonishingly high degree of state coercion in the lives of its citizens, from “ASBO” laws to the vast network of CCTV cameras constantly surveilling the public and now to capricious application of broadly-drawn “anti-terror” laws. About the only thing America still has over Britian in the brutality and opression race is throwing more people in prison.

During the 2008 election season, much of the overblown adoration for Barack Obama came from an assumption that immediately upon assuming office he would sweep away all the encroachments on American civil liberties that Bush (whom my daughter has dubbed “George Asscrack Bush”) and Cheney shoved through the Justice Department under the guise of “anti-terror” policy. As Glenn Greenwald pointed out in a recent Salon article, though, BarryO hasn’t exactly been in all that much hurry to undo things, and has even maintained the previous administration’s assertions for things like wiretapping anyone and everyone. That change we were supposed to believe in still hasn’t found its way off the campaign trail, I guess. What this particular bit of news out of London does, though, is act as a reminder on a couple of levels: first, it reminds us that our own civil liberties are not nearly as curtailed as they could be, which is a good thing. Second, it reminds us that the path from freedom-loving society to ham-fisted police state is a short one with only a few easily-abused justifications, and that even a velvet-covered fist is still a fist. Third, it should scare us all senseless that the transfer of power out of the hands of people committed to abusing it into the hands of people who promised to end that abuse not only hasn’t taken place but that the new administration seems to want to hang on to some of those powers. If you’re a nerd, let me give you the metaphor of Luke Skywalker and his robotic hand and his eventual temptation by the Emperor to destroy Darth Vader as the final push to the Dark Side. Even if you’re not a nerd, I’ll leave you with that thought and the suggestion that Britain is Anakin Skywalker.

whoever-lays-his-hand-on-me

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

“There Is No War On Terror”

I am late to the party on linking you to this story, but it also didn’t seem to get a huge amount of attention from the “MSM” when it was fresh: Sir Ken Macdonald, the head of the Crown Prosecution Service in the UK (sort of a national version of what we call “District Attorneys”) recently spoke to the British Criminal Bar Association and publicly repudiated the notion of a “war on terror”.

In the course of his remarks, Macdonald said that overzealous and “fear-driven” efforts to curtail civil rights represented a threat to the rule of law:

“It is critical that we understand that this new form of terrorism carries another more subtle, perhaps equally pernicious, risk. Because it might encourage a fear-driven and inappropriate response. By that I mean it can tempt us to abandon our values. I think it important to understand that this is one of its primary purposes.”

“London is not a battlefield…On the streets of London, there is no such thing as a ‘war on terror’, just as there can be no such thing as a ‘war on drugs’. The fight against terrorism on the streets of Britain is not a war. It is the prevention of crime, the enforcement of our laws and the winning of justice for those damaged by their infringement.”

Substitute American place names as appropriate, please. This message really needs to be heard widely and understood thoroughly. The only war is the one we started in Iraq for no valid reason whatsoever. How long can Americans propel themselves to undo the fundamentals of their own society based solely on the fear-driven response to a single incident?

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

All Original Content Copyright © BrianKaneOnline
All Other Content Copyright © Its Original Authors

Built on Notes Blog Core
Powered by WordPress

Switch to our mobile site