When campaigning against ID Cards and the National Identity Register (NIR) I've frequently used the following as a hypothetical example: Most child abuse happens at home, so why not put CCTV cameras in every home to protect kids? After all, if you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear.

That was intended as an extreme, ridiculous example to counteract the naive "nothing to hide..." brigade. I never, ever expected it to become real. Seems like I was the one being naive.

The Herald reports on a proposal to install CCTV cameras in the homes of drug addicts - all, of course, for the sake of the children.

It needs to be stressed that this is just the idea of one academic - Professor Neil McKeganey of the centre for Drug Misuse Research at Glasgow University - but the fact that it's even being discussed is worrying. I'm sure McKeganey has the best of motives, but his idea is dangerous. As is his argument:

"What price should we put on our privacy? The question is whether we are prepared to say the principle of the privacy of family life is more important than that of child protection. If we accept that privacy is the most important principle then there will be many more tragic cases."

Now I know what some people are thinking: these are addicts, they're dangerous to the kids, it won't affect me. That's always the way it starts: target the nasty "them", the decent "us" have nothing to fear.

Drug addicts first, who next? People diagnosed as suffering from depression or borderline personality disorders? Anyone who was themself abused as a child? People who smoke? Or who eat too much and might over-feed their kids?

First they came for the junkies...

Remember, most child abuse happens in the home. So once a sufficient critical mass of people have CCTV installed it will be a "natural" next step to put them in every home. All, of course, for the sake of the children.

Could it ever happen? I'd like to think not, but give Britain's surveillance state mentality I can't rule it out.

I remember when mass DNA testing began - it was only for those in the vicinity of particularly nasty and hard to solve murders. The concept expanded until today we are looking at a de facto national DNA database.

CCTV cameras in the streets were initially introduced in areas where there was a history of trouble. Today they're everywhere, even quiet villages.

Only criminal suspects used to be fingerprinted, today nightclubs are fingerprinting customers. Soon the government want us all fingerprinted and numbered for the NIR.

That's the way it goes with freedom: give an inch and they take it all. To protect our own liberties we must protect those of everyone - including junkies. No private home should ever have state CCTV installed.

If the SNP want to prove that they really are better than Labour, the Scottish Executive should publicly condemn and reject McKeganey's proposal.

Labels: CCTV, civil liberties, privacy, Scotland, uk politics, ukpolitics

Henry Porter wrote an excellent article in yesterday's Observer in which he said:

"[...] it is worth underlining one sentence that needs to be written in neon across every town centre: Britain is on the way to becoming a police state.
"Writing about the crisis of liberty in Britain, I have been careful not to use these words, but today I see no other conclusion to draw."

Like Porter I've tried to avoid calling the UK a "police state". Britain is clearly not a police state according to the traditional definition. Yet the similarities are many.

In Britain today we have (deep breath): routine monitoring of our daily lives and communications, 20% of the world's CCTV cameras, over 3000 new criminal offences created in ten years, vetting for all manner of jobs and other activities, fingerprinting of children in schools, increasing use of summary justice, erosion of the presumption of innocence, restrictions on the right to trial by jury, internment without charge, the threat of compulsory national ID Cards... Some people also believe the UK government has been complicit in the US policy of "extraordinary rendition" - which, in a South American dictatorship, would have been called "forced disappearance".

The main difference between the UK and a police state is lack of actual oppression: the authorities don't need to use force, we "baa" happily as we're shorn of our rights.

How has this happened? Partly because of the piecemeal approach the authorities have taken, introducing repressive laws one small step at a time so that most people haven't even noticed. In a country that thinks Big Brother is a jolly TV show, civil liberties just aren't as interesting as celebrity lifestyles.

Where there is any resistance the fear card has been played again and again. Since 911 it has mainly been fear of terrorism - a valid fear but not one which justifies the self-destruction of our way of life. Other weapons of fear include illegal immigrants and identity fraudsters along with the paedophiles who apparently hide behind every tree.

These objects of fear are used like sheepdogs, gently herding an ovine populace away from the wide fields of freedom and into the restricted pen of a de facto police state.

Britain isn't a police state for one simple reason: it doesn't need to be. We're collaborating in our own oppression.

Of course the sheepdog analogy suggests a shepherd running everything according to a master plan. I'm not paranoid enough to believe that - and not naive enough to rule it out.

civil liberties UK politics ukpolitics

Labels: civil liberties

A report in today's Mirror suggests that Gordon Brown is planning for a snap election next spring or even this autumn. The memo from party strategist Philip Gould sets out a 10 point plan for Brown to build public confidence with a "strategy of audacious advance" and to use a "shock and awe" approach to win a snap election.

It seems that Brown has been following the advice. In particular Gould says:

"The cluster of issues around security - crime, terror, immigration and so on - are now the dominant group of issues. I suspect that will be still the case by the next election."

In other words: play the fear card. If the public are sufficiently scared then they'll accept all sorts of oppressive measures and vote in favour of restrictions on their freedom.

Brown's authoritarian approach is reflected in his continued support for compulsory ID Cards and a National Identity Register (NIR) along with his desire to introduce extended internment without charge and hints of extra restrictions at unspecified "crowded places". He's also appointed Jacqui Smith as Home Secretary - a woman who reportedly chooses David "Big" Blunkett as her role model and rapidly rejects any suggestion of liberalism.

Brown may be more likeable than Tony Blair on a personal level, but inside the velvet glove the ex-Chancellor's fist is still made of iron. Brown is as much of a threat to civil liberties in the UK as was Blair.

The memo from Gould also says:

"You must start election planning early. We can't leave it late as we did last time. We must make a start."

That message is as important for anti-authoritarians as for Brown. If Brown is preparing for a snap election then we must start preparing to ensure that he loses.

Spread the word.


civil liberties Gordon Brown UK politics ukpolitics