Mr Benn
Tells it like it is
In the name of security
Tony Benn
Wednesday June 22, 2005
Since the attack on the twin towers, in which many innocent Americans were killed, we have been told that we are engaged in a war against terrorism that threatens our way of life and our liberties. From that moment on we have been asked to adopt a whole range of measures that pose what many believe could be a greater threat to those very liberties and to our way of life.That fact obliges us to examine them, one by one, as a part of the whole, lest we slip into an acceptance of a situation where we can be seen as acquiescing to restrictions on our political and personal freedoms that would have been unthinkable a few years ago.
For example, the forthcoming debate in the House of Commons on identity cards is motivated by a determination on the part of the government to set up a massive database incorporating everything that is known about us all. It integrates our personal particulars with police and security service files that may or may not be accurate, some of which we may never be allowed to know. It is that which makes it all look so like an embryonic police state. Much of the argument may rotate around the cost incurred or the reliability of biometric testing but, important as they are, the danger lies in the accumulation, storage and use that may be made of this information. For example, under the arrangements that Britain has with the US that allow us access to their nuclear technology in the Trident programme, America has long insisted that it should have access to all our intelligence material. That means the ID database will be automatically available to it. Given the number of leaks that occur and the value of the database, the possibility that it could fall into the hands of others for their private commercial purposes cannot be ruled out - with all the opportunities for abuse that would make possible. I have retained all my wartime ID cards with my name, address and photo but none of these posed any threat of the nature set out above.
In addition, we now have the latest anti-terrorist legislation, which permits house arrest and detention without a jury trial - eroding principles going back to the Magna Carta.
Security has reached such a pitch that constituents who visit the Commons, now policed by men with machine guns, can only observe those whom they have elected through a transparent bullet proof screen, which only emphasises the widening gap between government and governed. The prime minister himself moves within a cocoon of highly armed guards, whereas Harold Wilson had a single officer from the Met with a revolver in his pocket. Even when Mrs Thatcher was nearly blown up in Brighton no such stringent measures were proposed.
Next comes the Serious Crime and Disorder Act, under which the home secretary has been authorised to declare an exclusion zone around the Commons. This will silence - and could imprison - Brian Haw, who, far from being guilty of serious crime or disorder, has been preaching peace in Parliament Square and denouncing the war that has killed far more innocent Iraqis than the number of people who died on 9/11.
The Statue of Liberty has been replaced by Guantánamo Bay, and our main ally in the coalition that invaded Iraq now sends detainees to countries that practise torture and feels able to justify it. Soon we are to be told that to defend ourselves the Trident programme is to be updated at a cost that, Michael Portillo argues, could exceed the increase in aid that Britain may pledge at the G8 summit - though how nuclear weapons could deal with Osama bin Laden is far from clear.
At the Labour conference, delegates not only have to go through tight security but are also required to open their briefcases before they enter the conference hall, to make sure they are not carrying socialist literature.
The Commons does not elect our commissioner in Brussels and we are only allowed to vote for a party list in the European elections, leaving the prime minister to select all the Labour MEPs just as he chooses all the members of the House of Lords. This explains what Peter Mandelson meant when he said years ago that "the era of representative government is coming to an end".
In 1834, when the Commons burned down, crowds stood on the other side of the Thames and cheered because they had lost confidence in it. If that ever happened again, the responsibility would lie with those ministers and MPs who are undermining democracy in the name of security and using fear to push it through.
In the name of security
Tony Benn
Wednesday June 22, 2005
Since the attack on the twin towers, in which many innocent Americans were killed, we have been told that we are engaged in a war against terrorism that threatens our way of life and our liberties. From that moment on we have been asked to adopt a whole range of measures that pose what many believe could be a greater threat to those very liberties and to our way of life.That fact obliges us to examine them, one by one, as a part of the whole, lest we slip into an acceptance of a situation where we can be seen as acquiescing to restrictions on our political and personal freedoms that would have been unthinkable a few years ago.
For example, the forthcoming debate in the House of Commons on identity cards is motivated by a determination on the part of the government to set up a massive database incorporating everything that is known about us all. It integrates our personal particulars with police and security service files that may or may not be accurate, some of which we may never be allowed to know. It is that which makes it all look so like an embryonic police state. Much of the argument may rotate around the cost incurred or the reliability of biometric testing but, important as they are, the danger lies in the accumulation, storage and use that may be made of this information. For example, under the arrangements that Britain has with the US that allow us access to their nuclear technology in the Trident programme, America has long insisted that it should have access to all our intelligence material. That means the ID database will be automatically available to it. Given the number of leaks that occur and the value of the database, the possibility that it could fall into the hands of others for their private commercial purposes cannot be ruled out - with all the opportunities for abuse that would make possible. I have retained all my wartime ID cards with my name, address and photo but none of these posed any threat of the nature set out above.
In addition, we now have the latest anti-terrorist legislation, which permits house arrest and detention without a jury trial - eroding principles going back to the Magna Carta.
Security has reached such a pitch that constituents who visit the Commons, now policed by men with machine guns, can only observe those whom they have elected through a transparent bullet proof screen, which only emphasises the widening gap between government and governed. The prime minister himself moves within a cocoon of highly armed guards, whereas Harold Wilson had a single officer from the Met with a revolver in his pocket. Even when Mrs Thatcher was nearly blown up in Brighton no such stringent measures were proposed.
Next comes the Serious Crime and Disorder Act, under which the home secretary has been authorised to declare an exclusion zone around the Commons. This will silence - and could imprison - Brian Haw, who, far from being guilty of serious crime or disorder, has been preaching peace in Parliament Square and denouncing the war that has killed far more innocent Iraqis than the number of people who died on 9/11.
The Statue of Liberty has been replaced by Guantánamo Bay, and our main ally in the coalition that invaded Iraq now sends detainees to countries that practise torture and feels able to justify it. Soon we are to be told that to defend ourselves the Trident programme is to be updated at a cost that, Michael Portillo argues, could exceed the increase in aid that Britain may pledge at the G8 summit - though how nuclear weapons could deal with Osama bin Laden is far from clear.
At the Labour conference, delegates not only have to go through tight security but are also required to open their briefcases before they enter the conference hall, to make sure they are not carrying socialist literature.
The Commons does not elect our commissioner in Brussels and we are only allowed to vote for a party list in the European elections, leaving the prime minister to select all the Labour MEPs just as he chooses all the members of the House of Lords. This explains what Peter Mandelson meant when he said years ago that "the era of representative government is coming to an end".
In 1834, when the Commons burned down, crowds stood on the other side of the Thames and cheered because they had lost confidence in it. If that ever happened again, the responsibility would lie with those ministers and MPs who are undermining democracy in the name of security and using fear to push it through.
posted by phylos @ 10:00
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home