CAMBRIDGE LETTER
Society under surveillance
BILL KIRKMAN
|
Being able to scrutinise what agents of the state, whether police or politicians, do is crucial in defending democratic values.
|
When I wrote on March 25 about the campaign by the Convention on Modern Liberty against the erosion of civil rights in the United Kingdom, and fears that increasing surveillance of citizens’ activities might produce a police state, I did not in
tend to return to the subject again. Since then, however, we have witnessed in London, demonstrations focused on the G20 summit meeting, the death of a bystander, Ian Tomlinson, and the worldwide circulation of video footage filmed by an American fund manager who happened to be visiting London, showing Tomlinson apparently being assaulted by a police officer. We have seen an explosion of criticism of the police for their handling of the demonstration, and for their initial response to Tomlinson’s death.
More embarrassment
Then, at a time when it seemed impossible that anything more could happen to add to the embarrassment of the Metropolitan Police, Assistant Commissioner Bob Quick, who had been in charge of anti-terrorism activities nationally, had to resign after being photographed outside 10 Downing Street, the Prime Minister’s official residence, carrying a clearly visible and readable top secret document.
Quick’s resignation is the latest in a series of departures of experienced and senior officers from the Metropolitan Police. Those who have gone include Assistant Commissioner Tarrique Ghaffur, who was the most senior police officer from an ethnic minority in the U.K. and who left after a serious conflict over his treatment by the then Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, and Sir Ian Blair himself, after a very public row with the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson.
Embarrassment has not been limited to the police. At the weekend, Damian McBride, a senior aide to Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, resigned after a leak of e-mails discussing how to smear leading Conservatives. In making these e-mails public, the role of a blogger who uses the name Guido Fawkes was crucial.
One thing that emerges with great clarity from the circulation of pictures showing the apparent assault on Ian Tomlinson, and the breaking of the news of Damian McBride’s e-mails, is that the publication of news is no longer a top-down activity; “citizen journalists” have arrived, and are here to stay.
What emerges also is a reminder that being able to scrutinise what agents of the state, whether police or politicians, do is of crucial importance in defending the democratic values which the U.K. proclaims. In this context, increasing harassment, on dubious grounds of security, of anyone taking photographs of police officers, is a worrying development. Concerns about Britain’s “surveillance society” are exacerbated by attempts to prevent the surveyors from themselves being surveyed.
In the Ian Tomlinson case, it seems clear from the initial response of the police that the circumstances of his death, and the way in which the police handled the G20 demonstrations as a whole, would not have been subjected to public questioning if the American visitor had not shot his video, and if The Guardian had not given wide publicity to it. Quick’s breach of security would not have become apparent had he not been photographed. And Damian McBride’s irresponsible behaviour would not have become publicly known without the intervention of the blogger.
Counter productive
In a democracy it is, surely, important not to let those in authority forget that they are working for us. Furthermore, it is important to recognise that if wrong steps are taken, they can be counter-productive. The threat of terrorism provides a good example. There is no doubt that the threat is real or that taking steps to identify potential terrorists, and catch them, is justifiable and necessary. Most U.K. citizens, I am sure, share that view.
If we discover that we are all being treated like potential terrorists, and that our rights and freedoms are being trampled on, our willingness to co-operate will vanish. Similarly, if our confidence in the behaviour of the police, and in the way they are managed and controlled, is eroded, the country will face a problem which is fundamentally more important than terrorist threats.
The widespread public reaction to the G20 policing — of shock and anger — indicates a very serious loss of confidence. It needs to be recognised, and tackled intelligently, by the police and by the government. The readiness of both to impose ever more draconian restrictions on what should be seen as normal and acceptable behaviour — however irritating to those “in authority” — in a democracy, does not inspire much confidence.
Bill Kirkman is an Emeritus Fellow of Wolfson College Cambridge, UK. E-mail him at: bill.kirkman@gmail.com
Fact File
Ian Tomlinson died during the G20 protests in London. He collapsed within a police cordon. The initial reaction was that Tomlinson had a heart attack but soon allegations surfaced that he had been attacked by the police. The Guardian also published footage shot by a bystander confirming the allegations. The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) initially accepted the police version but has now agreed to an independent investigation.
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Magazine
