It’s been fairly obvious to those of us taking notice, that since the Twin Towers attacks in 2001, the UK government has been engaging in a campaign of fear mongering designed to allow them to systematically undermine civil liberties. It is in the name of fighting this Will o’ the Wisp, that it is now an offence to photograph a police officer, that thousands of citizens have been stopped and searched under section 44 with absolutely nothing found, that a database state has been set up to catalogue and monitor us… I could go on, but you get the drift.
The knubmskulls; the useful idiots; the righteous hordes will argue that we are fools; paranoid tinfoil hatters who are shouting at shadows lurking in our twighlight psyches – as opposed to the facts before us.
Well, if that is so, what about Stella Rimmington?
A former head of MI5 has accused the government of exploiting the fear of terrorism and trying to bring in laws that restrict civil liberties.
Yup, that’s about the measure of it.
The Home Office said it was vital to strike a right balance between privacy, protection and sharing personal data.
Well, yes, no reasonable person would gainsay this. It is the government that has stepped way beyond this line, that has failed to strike the right balance. There is nothing reasonable about massive databases designed to track and catalogue us, there is no balance in making photographing police officers a criminal offence, there is no balance in haranguing trainspotters or using RIPA to spy on parents seeking a better school for their children or people who put out the wrong bins. Yes, the statement is factually true, the government, however hasn’t a clue about where that balance should be struck and that is the root of the problem.
It said any policies which impact on privacy must be “proportionate”.
And it is perfectly obvious to any but the rampant control freak or their pathetic apologists that the current raft of policies are anything but proportionate – remember the IRA campaign? Systematic and competent compared wit the coupe of attacks carried out by Islamic extremists, yet no such measures were introduced in response to this risk – which is the point Rimmington makes:
It would be better that the government recognised that there are risks, rather than frightening people in order to be able to pass laws which restrict civil liberties, precisely one of the objects of terrorism – that we live in fear and under a police state,
Precisely.
“There is nothing reasonable about massive databases designed to track and catalogue us, there is no balance in making photographing police officers a criminal offence, there is no balance in haranguing trainspotters or using RIPA to spy on parents seeking a better school for their children..”
Likewise, there’s nothing reasonable about considering those with views (not actions) you don’t like to be ‘extremists’…
JuliaM,
“Likewise, there’s nothing reasonable about considering those with views (not actions) you don’t like to be ‘extremists’…”
Though those views are incompatible with western democracy, and those who advocate those views seek to destroy us? Yes, mainstream Mohammedan thought is extremist! It is entirely reasonable to consider the aim to overthrow all democratic governments in favour of a caliphate as extremist. However, it should also be considered that acting on those ideas is terrorist, and not merely militant or extremist.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/feb/18/liquid-bomb-plot-trial
It is the difference between holding a view and acting upon it that is crucial. My absolute belief in freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, association, religion et al, means that while I detest Islam, I absolutely defend its practitioners’ right to indulge in their faith unmolested – providing they don’t cross that line.
From the quoted piece:
Well, that’s the Catholics (and the Baptists) done for, then…
“Though those views are incompatible with western democracy, and those who advocate those views seek to destroy us?”
When those views translate into actions, have at them. Until then, as Longrider points out, their beliefs aren’t so different from any other major religions, and they are free to hold them as they wish.
And as for ‘promoting Sharia law’, when are they going to come in the night for the Archbishop of Canterbury….?