In the aftermath of the London Bombings, Tony Blair advocated for "business as normal" and said that terrorism would not change the British way of life. Now, in the name of fighting terrorism, he wants to deport people who read things he doesn't like, close down mosques where people say things he doesn't like, and proscribe groups who believe things he doesn't like - regardless of whether they actually do anything or not. He also wants to deport refugees to countries where they will be tortured, and extend the police's power to detain people without charge - as if the present fourteen days was not obscenity enough. There are all sorts of things I want to say to this: that none of these measures would have helped prevent the London attacks; that they repeat the mistakes of Northern Ireland; that you do not win a war of ideas through censorship; that they play into Osama bin Laden's hands by making it more difficult for moderate Muslims to live in western societies; that this is "giving in to terrorism" in its most fundamental sense. But instead, I'll echo the Guardian's response: this "cure" is worse than the disease. The terrorists won't need to destroy western civilisation (as if they ever could), because Tony Blair will have done it for them. Freedom of speech and freedom of conscience and freedom from torture are absolutely fundamental to the western way of life, and if we sacrifice them in order to fight terrorism, then we have nothing left to defend.
8 comments:
Notice how every response from the UK government is:
1. Laws and rules that are harsher, more invasive, restrictive, liberty-depriving, and
2. The creation of databases for everything.
Posted by Bomber : 8/07/2005 12:27:00 AM
It is a bit of a paradox
If you don't like the trend the only way you can stop it is to stop the terrorism.
But that only has two options - these sort of policies OR do what the terrorists demand to avoid their anger.
Posted by Genius : 8/07/2005 10:56:00 AM
Or we can fight terrorism with the weapons we have already - weapons which are perfectly adequate for the task, and not nearly so destructive of the very things we are supposed to be fighting for.
Posted by Idiot/Savant : 8/07/2005 12:20:00 PM
Could you please explain the difference between what Blair is doing to combat terrorism and your buddies plans to halt what the left call....hate speech? It seems to me that you believe terrorists should have more rights than say...homophobes...
Posted by Anonymous : 8/07/2005 07:41:00 PM
>"Freedom of speech and freedom of conscience and freedom from torture are absolutely fundamental to the western way of life"
It would be nice if this were true but the British have been known to be cavalier about fundamental rights, due process etc in the past- their dealing with the IRA and the general population of Northern Ireland is one example that springs to mind
Posted by Amanda : 8/07/2005 07:41:00 PM
> Or we can fight terrorism with the weapons we have already
this is already part of my equasion.
Political opinion depends to a large extent on what you hold constant and what you believe you can change. I am considering in this case the publics general reaction to terrorism (ie calling for laws that protect them) to be constant.
the current system and laws might be the way to deal with them (depends on lots of variables - similar ones that make us have different laws for different crimes) but I am very dubious about having open trials.
Posted by Genius : 8/07/2005 09:16:00 PM
"I am considering in this case the publics general reaction to terrorism (ie calling for laws that protect them) to be constant."
*hah!* that soothing complete absence of sound is the general public's clamour for new invasive laws to protect them..
The public are only too aware that laws are ridiculously ineffectual at preventing terrorism.. you may as well expect laws to prevent crime. Laws provide some restraint to those who heed them.. society is held together far more by mutual recognition and obligation than by law. And these new laws actively destroy society by fostering fear and paranoia. Law is essential, but as a tool for solving this problem, you may as well use a toothpick..
Posted by Anonymous : 8/08/2005 11:34:00 AM
> absence of sound is the general public's clamour for new invasive laws to protect them..
Parties like Labour take action before parties like the conservatives or the national front can gain traction.
>Laws...
Laws control a segment of public oppinion preventing most socialized criminals and often provide disincentives to the "business criminals".
these two groups cover most potential criminals and while they may not prevent anti-social short-term thinkers that doesnt mean they are not effective. besides surveilance databases and liberty depravation can insure you catch them and are wary of them.
There is really no grounds for arguing such things are not effective just for agguing htat you dont want them despite their being effective.
Posted by Genius : 8/08/2005 07:01:00 PM
Post a Comment
(Anonymous comments are enabled).