When the various anti-terrorism laws were set in place, the government promised everybody that these powers were to cope with a limited, awful problem. Some idiots believed it. Perhaps one of them (though I doubt it), was Chris Kitchen, an environmentalist activist.
Amongst those with other ideas were the police, who realised that the Terrorism Act 2000 could be used to harass and obstruct anyone with whom they have an ideological disagreement. They don't need to go about the hassle of charging, court appearances, juries and all the other checks and balances which attend the prosecution of justice in a democracy.
Mr. Kitchen was on the bus to Denmark when he was hauled off it under the Terrorism Act to see whether he was a terrorist. On protesting that environmentalism isn't terrorism, the officer informed him that 'terrorism means a lot of things' - which a) isn't true and b) demonstrates the inevitable creeping use of oppressive laws to stifle citizens' freedom of movement and expression.
Sure, it's an isolated case - so far. A fair few hundred people are heading to Copenhagen, and they're not terrorists, just people who want to remind those in the motorcades and fancy hotels that more than just votes are at stake. Time for the police to remember that their duty is to the public, not to those with whom they agree.
9 comments:
Although this does seem to be a misuse of power (I don't know the details of the case at all) I feel I cannot let go your statement that 'terrorism means a lot of things' isn't true. Surely all words mean lots of things dependent on the speaker and the listener? Terrorism I would argue was a particularly nebulous word.
Anyway, semantics aside, yeah, seems a bad thing.
Oh yeah, and the police have a duty to the law, not the public. If everyone in Britain all agreed that murder was not a crime the police would still have to arrest them for murdering each other until the statute agreed with the public. As Lenny Bruce pointed out over forty years ago the police are just the delivery men of the law. Rage against the police is wasted energy.
What has a greater effect on the future - protesting at politicians and police or protesting within communities?
If the planet is going to be saved (or more accurately the human race be saved, the planet will muddle on by until it is sucked into the expanding sun as it dies) then we need a better plan than shouting at people and climbing on rooftops. Where is the plan B?
Yes, I accept that terrorism is a mutable term (which is part of the problem) - it shouldn't be down to a copper to use it to his advantage.
What you say about policing and the law is very idealistic. In practice, as you'll know if you've ever seen the police stopping black kids, for example, or the rape conviction statistics, is that the police have a very different conception of their duty. There is a problem with policing in this country (it's worse in many others) and we should protest against misapplication of their powers when required. They are public servants.
I don't necessarily feel that the police should be completely controlled by what the laws are: it takes away their ability to turn a blind eye to some things, or to step in to situations which need calming down, for example, rather than arrests. That said, it's true that public opinion shouldn't dictate policing. However, policing should respond to the people via democracy: Parliament and the local authorities to which they are supposedly answerable.
As to the rest, my feelings on the environment are that we're basically too late now: it's a matter of managing decline, and I'm serious when I say that the only relief for me is that I'll be dead by the time it gets unbearable. Protest has its place though: politicians have repeatedly proved, at every level, that they are short-termists and opportunists. Vocally reminding them of their duty isn't the most effective tactic, but it's useful nonetheless.
Although we are, of course, far too late to preserve the planet as it is we are looking at a mass extinction event and not total desruction. Whether it be disease, drought, war, whatever, the human population will eventually be brought down to a managable population by fate. It could be tomorrow. Don't bank on being dead!
Of course politicians are short-termist. They serve short terms. As for opportunist, that is a pretty species-wide failing isn't it? You can remind them of their duty all you like but if the goverment act responsibly, tax more, reduce motorist rights, start expensive renewable power schemes, curb the excesses of capitalism, help end unfair trade and terrible wages in the third world then they may win the moral high ground but they will lose the next election. This is the major paradox of democracy isn't it? You have to do what wins votes, not what is right. Britain has an incredibly flawed democratic system. Put bluntly it does not work. Waving a photo of a crying seal stapled to a sheet of plywood isn't going to change a damn thing.
All (sadly) true. So what's your solution?
Cheese, fine wines, good books...
i.e. personal gratification while we watch the world burn.
Well. I think it is probably a more workable solution than what might save the planet; ie worldwide pregnancy limitation via strictly policed pregnancy licences, a dismantling of all states, a return to the city state or polis, the complete dismissal by the human species of warfare, religion, keynesian economics, financial institutions and pseudo-science, a complete ban on the import of foodstuffs, manafactured goods etc, the end of the production of books, newspapers and magazines, the giving over of about 95% of all land on earth to wildlife reserves, the end of electricity in any form etc etc
Can you see that happening? No? Well eat your cheese then.
Some of these things may happen. Your alternative is profoundly depressing and suggests no faith in humanity whatsoever. I haven't much, but a little more than you, evidently!
People are great. I love humanity. I, unlike you, do not believe 'camps' are a solution to anything. If it was down to humanity we would be fine. Unfortunately the people who make the decisions are those who are unaffected by the outcome.
Post a Comment