freeinfidel

The process of destroying freedom often starts with steps that seem reasonable. If you want to strip everyone of their civil liberties, start with a group everyone despises. Few groups fit this bill better than paedophiles.

There is a famous and oft-quoted text that reads:

In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;

And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;

And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;

And then … they came for me … And by that time there was no one left to speak up.

The poem is generally attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892-1984), though there is some debate about both the attribution and the wording. But no matter: the sentiment is clear - it’s important we recognise dangers even when they are not targeted at ourselves.

But the poem has a weakness. It addresses our need to consider the fate of ‘others’, but it doesn’t extend that unambiguously to ‘despised others’. And this is where the erosion of our freedoms more typically starts.

The greatest resistance to an attempt to take away a freedom we cherish occurs when the law or regulation is first made. Once a rule is established, prohibiting this or regulating that, then many will see the battle as lost and will put their energies into the next fight. Little by little, freedom becomes eroded.

The trick, then, as far as the authorities are concerned, is to make the regulation seem reasonable. Phrases such as ‘for your safety’ or ‘good for society’ are often deployed whenever the result of a new law is to place limits on your freedoms.

It works even better if the restrictions affect a minority group within society that the majority despise or fear or for whom they can raise no compassion. And paedophiles are to today’s society what the Jews were to the Nazis. Who cares if paedophiles have their freedoms stripped away: they brought it on themselves, right? Surely they don’t deserve the same benefits and liberties as the rest of us.

The latest proposed restrictions in the UK would ban convicted paedophiles from social networking sites such as Facebook and Bebo. The ban would be implemented by the sites themselves, based on email addresses supplied by the Government. Paedophiles would be obliged to supply details of the email accounts they use.

Presumably, this is an attempt to prevent the cyberstalking of children. There is some debate about the extent to which this happens, and whether it presents a genuine threat. But I have sympathy for the attitude that one case is one too many.

The scheme is clearly unworkable. Computer forensic experts can tell you that the most active (and potentially dangerous) paedophiles are technically adept. They would know how to use proxies, TOR, wardriving, cyber-cafes and other technologies and techniques to hide their identities. Gmail and Hotmail accounts can be created in seconds. And most social networking sites are based outside the UK’s jurisdiction.

It might also have the opposite effect to the one desired. The restrictions would affect only convicted paedophiles. Those yet to be caught could still roam Facebook. And, believing that such sites are now safer places, children might be tempted to let their guard down.

What is more sinister for all of us is that this new rule would establish a mechanism by which the authorities can designate a group that is to be denied the use of some portion of the Internet. And the actual restriction would be imposed not by government authorities but by commercial organisations - the Government gets to keep its hands clean.

How easy it would be to start extending this mechanism to other groups, other parts of the net, other areas of life. If someone notices, just blame it on ‘mission creep’. Because we feel a natural distaste for those branded as paedophiles, who will oppose this regulation? After all, ‘it’s for the children’. Once it is accepted, though, there will be little to stop its expansion to embrace us all.

A website promoting a short film by Geert Wilders, the Dutch anti-immigration politician, has been taken offline by the Internet services company hosting it. This was not a judgment on the quality, morality or intellectual worth of the film: it was an act of fear.

(more…)

A UK professional photographers’ group has hit back at the Metropolitan Police’s fear-mongering campaign against photographers. But at least the ‘togs have a sense of humour.

In classic Orwellian fashion, the Met’s ad campaign (which I wrote about in Pump up the paranoia) incites the general public to watch itself. It promotes suspicion and fear. Its headline, “Thousands of people take photographs every day. What if one of them seems odd?” seems calculated to appeal to that fraction of society that likes to appoint itself the guardian and judge of the rest.

It continues: “Terrorists use surveillance to help plan attacks, taking photographs and making notes about security measures like the location of CCTV cameras. If you see someone doing that, we need to know. Let experienced officers decide what action to take.” And it ends: “Terrorism. If you suspect it, report it.” The likely result of the paranoia this kind of campaign generates is the suppression of the press. News photographers already have a hard time doing their job without every gullible nerk thinking there’s an RPG inside that long lens.

But photographers and terrorists are not the only groups capable of dubious behaviour.

The Editorial Photographers UK (EPUK) group maintains a website with information and news for photographers as well as a private mailing list. It’s an invaluable resource for documentary and reportage shooters, providing advice, guidance and support, often in a more timely and effective way than any formal industry body.

Now. in association with the National Union of Journalists and the British Press Photographers Association, it has responded to the Met’s shameful behaviour. Its own poster design (available on t-shirts and mugs here) mimics the Police’s posters, but with rather more wit.

“Thousands of coppers stop photographers every day,” it says, with forgiveable hyperbole, “What if one of them seems odd?”

Then, with a reference to the Police’s frequent abuse of Section 44 of the Terrorism Act, it says: “Police twist the laws to help prevent protest, stopping people and threatening arrest under vague all encompassing terrorism laws. If you see a copper behaving oppressively we need to know. Let experienced journalists decide what action to take.”

STATE CONTROL. IF YOU SUSPECT IT, REPORT IT.

It seems that Turkey doesn’t quite grasp the concept of free speech. It has again blocked access to YouTube for content it deems insulting to Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the country’s founder.

(more…)

An anti-terrorism campaign by London’s police forces is exploiting the public’s paranoia in the hope of catching would-be terrorists in the act. It will also have the effect of making life even harder for press photographers. But maybe the erosion of press freedom might be seen as a bonus by the Metropolitan Police.

(more…)

Humanity, law and democracy are poor protection against religiously inspired murder. But they are the only means available to us that offer some measure of safety while allowing us to call ourselves civilised.

(more…)

Atheists in Philadelphia have erected a ‘tree of knowledge’ in the free speech area outside a courthouse, alongside a Christian nativity scene and a Jewish menorah. Sadly, and predictably, only the atheist celebration has attracted controversy and hate. And ironically, the tree has also highlighted the astonishing ignorance of those who seem threatened by it.

(more…)

If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. How often do we hear this from those who would promote surveillance, increased police powers and other forms of social control? But there is a basic flaw at the heart of this thinking: who decides what constitutes ‘hiding’? How do you decide what is acceptable behaviour?

(more…)

London’s Metropolitan Police may soon be operating from large, fortress-style bases to which the public will have no access.
While community support officers may be based in local shop-type premises, where the rest of us will be allowed to enter, the bulk for the Met’s forces will be housed in centralised ‘warehouses’, firmly closed to the public but possibly including jail cells.

This is a dangerous move. Police forces, and the Met in particular, are vulnerable to a kind of elitist, isolationist mindset that can become a sort of siege mentality at times.

Within the force, those officers engaged in community work are often seen as ’soft’, or not doing ‘real’ policing. The Met is riddled with an atavistic, macho self-image that sees real policing involving hard men doing tough things. And this leads to the other form of isolationism - the habit of police officers to see the world divided into ‘us’ and ‘them’.

(more…)

We all know Facebook won’t let you quit: you can deactivate an account, but not erase it. Many of us, who value our privacy, think this is disgraceful and arrogant. Facebook seems to think it owns us. But why worry? Just make sure all the information they have about you is false.

When I first heard about, and joined, Facebook it seemed like an amusing idea - for about a week. That’s about as long as it took to hook up with a bunch of old friends with whom I’d lost contact. Then the annoyances really set it - people badgering me to install applications to do things whose triviality and pointlessness make Big Brother seem positively constructive. Then there’s the advertising. And above all, the dawning realisation that I was doing all the work to make Mark Zuckerberg rich - by providing lots of intimate details about myself that he could sell.

Facebook is a waste of bandwidth. So why not leave? The answer is, they won’t let you. Your data is just too valuable to them. They can’t let you go.

(more…)