h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Blues,

"You've deliberately misinterpreted posts, particularly my point about the pub. The point was of course that nowhere other than on the net would you feel able to abuse people and effectively label them as liars."

It wasn't deliberate, that's not how I understood you. Also, I wasn't accusing you of lying but of being wrong, which is quite different and a point I think I made myself in replying to your complaint that the civil liberties "lobby" doesn't tell the truth (when it was just as possible that they had made a mistake).

"You think the production of an internet link *automatically* makes you right and others wrong. Well here's the skinny - I can find sites that say teh Earth isd Flat, the moon landings were fake and that chrystal healing works."

Well, I think there's a world of difference between a written answer in parliament and a website that says the Earth is flat.

"Out of interest would you feel able to do this with an academic who clearly knew more about the subject under discussion than you?"

If an academic refused to engage in argument and instead just kept repeating that I'd have to trust him I would doubt his qualifications.

My question to you now is - what more could I do? I've done my best to find out what the facts of the matter are here. Since I'm not a lawyer, my research has been mainly on the internet (hence the links), where the evidence has been literally unanimous in support of my view. Other than just trusting you, which I'm not willing to do and there's no reason why I should, what more could I do here?

"It makes you look like a 6th former or worse yet and under-graduate..."

I guess if an undergrad is worse than a sixth former a PhD student must be worse again than an undergrad?

Potholer,

"I'm still curious what the troublesome scenarios are that most worry people from a civil liberties point of view."

I think there are a variety of worries, more or less well defined. You wouldn't think it from reading this thread but actually the issue of retention of DNA samples is not a particular interest of mine, and I was only spurred to go and read about it by Blues saying so authoritatively that it wasn't true. So, rather than try to explain it myself I'll just put a link here to an article that seems to be quite good.

http://www.lynnefeatherstone.org/column104-dna-database.htm

In general though, I think the worries are similar to the worries people have about civil liberties issues in general. Often, on the face of it it's difficult to see what the problem is because our government isn't a fascist one and so they wouldn't misuse these powers (although more on that below). One danger is that future governments inherit the powers of the current government. A DNA database doesn't just disappear, and neither would the database attached to the ID card scheme. They are both potentially tools of oppression. If the Leg & Reg bill had passed, this government and any future government would have had the power to introduce or amend legislation without going through parliament. Even if we don't expect Tony Blair, Gordon Brown or David Cameron to try to create an authoritarian dictatorship, can we trust that no future government will give in to the temptation to use those powers?

So there's worries based on uncertainty. As the article I linked to above states, there are apparently proposals to privatise the Forensic Services. The samples are also kept by private companies. Where there is a profit motive there is a potential for abuse. With thinks like DNA, things move so fast that new dangers that we don't yet even know about might become possible in the future. It's all about not giving the state the power to oppress us should they choose to.

In addition to that, there's also the fact that the state is already abusing its powers, albeit at a low level (some examples provided by McKay above). The whole point of the Niemoller poem that Blues so dislikes is that it's easy to ignore incursions on civil liberties when each individual one doesn't affect you much, but if you keep doing that the whole package ends up getting you in the end. For example, you might say about some new law "Oh that's OK, that would only be used on terrorist suspects, and I will never be a terrorist suspect". But then they go ahead and use anti-terrorism laws to kick out that protestor from the Labour conference last year. In itself this is of course a very minor example, but it highlights the potential for abuse in these laws.

Hmm reading your post again I realise you're more interested in the specifics of DNA than the civil liberties thing in general which I'm sure you're familiar with anyway, but since I've bothered to type out the above I'll just leave it rather than delete it. Waste not want not.

"In general though, I think the worries are similar to the worries people have about civil liberties issues in general. Often, on the face of it it's difficult to see what the problem is because our government isn't a fascist one and so they wouldn't misuse these powers (although more on that below). One danger is that future governments inherit the powers of the current government. A DNA database doesn't just disappear, and neither would the database attached to the ID card scheme. They are both potentially tools of oppression. If the Leg & Reg bill had passed, this government and any future government would have had the power to introduce or amend legislation without going through parliament. Even if we don't expect Tony Blair, Gordon Brown or David Cameron to try to create an authoritarian dictatorship, can we trust that no future government will give in to the temptation to use those powers?"

How likely is it we'd see a "future dictatorship", though, given the fact that liberal democracy looks secure in Europe? Apart from that, if Britain really did fall under an oppressive regime what they could do with ID Cards would be the last of your worries. Oppressive regimes don't tend to oppress people with ID Cards and DNA databases, they tend to use secret police, torture and judicial murder.

You also ignore the fact that it would be very hard for a repressive state to exist in the UK since it would require the complete overthrow of the Parliamentary system. Whilst Parliament exists, it is extremely difficult for an oppressive government to function. You also don't take into account that an oppressive government would probably face endless civilian uprisings and collapse (this is why dictatorships generally are so unsuccessful: they tend to form to deal with a single problem, refuse to relinquish power and bankrupt the state attempting to hold onto office before being overthrown from within or without).

Your argument seems to be "one day, Britain might be a dictatorship". I would counter that 1) this is extremely unlikely and 2) if such a state did manage to exist here then DNA databases would be the last of your worries.

"So there's worries based on uncertainty. As the article I linked to above states, there are apparently proposals to privatise the Forensic Services. The samples are also kept by private companies. Where there is a profit motive there is a potential for abuse. With thinks like DNA, things move so fast that new dangers that we don't yet even know about might become possible in the future. It's all about not giving the state the power to oppress us should they choose to."

The parliamentary reading you quoted from states that DNA samples can only be used in the context of prosecuting a crime. It is illegal for them to be used for anything else. Unless that changes (and I very much doubt it will) your arguments are mere scaremongering.

More to the point, how could DNA samples be used to "oppress"?

Basically, as far as genetic privacy goes, I'd be ****ed anyway in a totalitarian state, aince as a blood donor I'm giving away several pints of prime sample material.

I'm not sure what I'd really have to worry about regarding a totalitarian state having my DNA on record, unless I was involved in some kind of armed uprising where DNA might be useful for forensic purposes. Even then, as long as I made up my bombs or anthrax-loaded letters hygenically enough, and/or salted them with someone else's DNA, I'd probably be OK on that front.

If there was a state that wnted to get into some heavy eugenics, etc, it'd be dead easy for them to just take samples from people anyway.

In a rush so only a very quick reply I'm afraid.

Zagreb,

"How likely is it we'd see a "future dictatorship", though, given the fact that liberal democracy looks secure in Europe?"

It doesn't have to be a full on dictatorship for there to be a danger. A sharply authoritarian government seems quite plausible given the current trend.

"You also ignore the fact that it would be very hard for a repressive state to exist in the UK since it would require the complete overthrow of the Parliamentary system."

Emergency powers could be used here. It's worth bearing in mind that South Africa before Apartheid had a legal constitution which was designed to make it impossible to do precisely what they ended up doing, creating Apartheid. Considerable legal trickery was involved and it took some years but they managed it. On the face of it, increasing the number of supreme court judges seems like something that isn't very dangerous, but it was the crucial step in the legal creation of Apartheid.

I don't see any reason why a parliamentarian system couldn't produce an authoritarian government. Democracies have certainly abdicated many times in the past.

Sorry - I've been away on a course, and haven't had time to read the backlog until now.

Firstly, it seems to have been suggested that I am against a dna database, I am not, however as someone who has been arrested and charged with attempted murder (I was innocent) I am concerned about the rights of the innocent, and the way I feel these rights are being eroded.

I can only agree with Blues that the re-wording of the right to silence makes things easier for the prosecution, yet we have the current debate where people are claiming they are being forced to incriminate themselves if they respond to a fixed penalty notice from a speed camera.

It has also been suggested that I am some kind of libertarian, this type of label is easy to use to dismiss the arguements of someone who is concerned about infringement of liberties, though its rare it's used against a proponent of capital punishment.

Now popping back to my clain about ASBOs - whilst Blues correctly says that only relevant authorities can apply to the courts for an ASBO, what this doesn't say is that there is no burden of proof upon the issuing of an ASBO. Word of mouth and rumour can be sufficient, so if 3 or 4 of us all say the same thing, then we can succeed in achieving an infringement of an individual's liberties.

The point about dna was that when ARRESTED the police can take the sample - not for evidence purposes, but because you have been arrested, I have no problem about samples being taken for comparison, or to exclude someone, however this is the automatic collection of samples from anyone arrested. Not charged, and not found guilty - therein lies my problem.

Regarding my rather poor examples of drug users already breaking the law, I recognise that drug taking is not a crime - however buying it is - as I understand the relevant legislation.

Then we come on to the 'future dictatorship scenario' I'm sure we all know the story "they came for the gays, and I said nothing, because I'm not gay, then they came for the gypsies....." ? I don't really wish to get into a discussion about positive and negative freedoms, but positive freedoms means the freedom to do something - sing in the street say. Negative freedoms means the right to be free from the noise of people singing in the street.

In our society we have a balance between the two freedoms, and this decides the political landscape, and the society within which we live. However, the goal posts have shifted recently.

Firstly we have a Primeminister who favours a 'presidential' style of government, he makes decisions without recourse to Cabinet. Thus the Iraq war where he decided this was the right thing to do, and only released to Parliament the arguements that supported his view, and suppressed the others.

When counter-arguements arose, then the law was used to silence the media organ - the BBC - that presented this evidence. The major witness died, and the investigations were sponsored by the government deprtment that was being investigated.

I don't think this is too far from a dictatorship scenario. What will be the next 'idea' that the Primeminister has ?

We already have the concept that the government can decide what's good for you - speed limits for example. Now we have the smoking ban. Driving is a licensed activity, correctly so, but smoking ?

Nah ! No dictatorships in this country.

Welcome back McKay, haven't we been having fun while you were away?

Also, (whispers) don't mention the Niemoller poem...

>>"I don't think this is too far from a dictatorship scenario."

Well, I'm not sure that the population is left in fear of speaking out on the issue of the Iraq war.
Neither am I sure that as a result of any overt or covert government propaganda action, there has been a significant shift of opinion in favour of the decision to participate in the invasion.

In fact, for all my disagreements with them, once the decision to go along with Bush was taken, it's difficult to see how much less the government could have done to look like a dictatorship without actually doing nothing at all.

Governments always massage facts to fit what they have decided to do. Though I don't condone that, I was rather more surprised that anyone else was actually surprised than I was surprised at what had actually happened.

This isn't a dictatorship in that I'm free* to go up the High St of a Saturday and start shouting that Blair is a liar, the Labour Party are corrupt and the Tories are fascists. The reason for that is, I'm a nobody. In fact, a million nobodies can march and it isn't a threat. But, if you're a Judge or a senior policeman or a senior politician, say goodbye to your career. The people who can make a difference are effectively silenced.

Izzadeen and the Muppet Show can spout off religious hatred because they don't have any real influence. In fact, they're quite useful to the Government 'cos while the media is bumping it's gums about religious fanatics, there's less column inches available for the issues that do matter.

*actually, I would be lifted for breach of the peace, but that would be for making a noise, not for what I was saying.

That's weird, I read McKay's post and have no idea why it was moderated...?

Huh? I don't remember anything naughty. Who did he contradict? It's not been automatically removed by a mod, so it must be because someone's complained.

I wish the sad sacks who do that would have the gumption to post their reasons.

And my post is back.

As I didn't receive a moderation e-mail I don't know why it was pulled.

Evidently I should have thrown in freedom of speech, during my little speech.

Perhaps the person who yikesed it can now present their arguements here ?

"We already have the concept that the government can decide what's good for you - speed limits for example"

Oh, for goodness sake! The speed limit is not about government deciding "what's good for you". If you speed, you put much more than yourself at risk so the government is preventing you from putting others at risk. It's preventing you from infringing on others in a public place. In any free society your rights must not impinge on those of others.

"Firstly we have a Primeminister who favours a 'presidential' style of government, he makes decisions without recourse to Cabinet. Thus the Iraq war where he decided this was the right thing to do, and only released to Parliament the arguements that supported his view, and suppressed the others."

Yes, Blair made his case for war to parliament and didn't make the case against. That tends to be what people making an argument do. It's their opponents obligation to make the counter-arguments. Parliament was allowed a vote on the war. They voted for it (first time the UK Parliament has voted on going to war, I think).

"When counter-arguements arose, then the law was used to silence the media organ - the BBC - that presented this evidence. The major witness died, and the investigations were sponsored by the government deprtment that was being investigated."

I'm sick of this nonsense about the BBC being suppressed. THe BBC is a public-service broadcaster with a remit and one of its duties is to not take sides on political issues. It pursued the government over the 45-minutes claim, clearly took a side, and got into trouble over it. It was fair enough for the BBC to question the 45-minute claim but not fair enough to pursue the government over it in the manner that, say, a newspaper with an agenda would.

"I don't think this is too far from a dictatorship scenario."

So Blair putting the war to a parliamentary vote and the BBC being made to stick to its charter is "not too far" from something like Syria? Please...

Yes Blair put it to a vote - but he denied access to the information needed to Parliament - and his own cabinet. You may recall Robin Cooke resigned over the issue.

That an ineffective opposition failed to realise they were being hood-winked does not, in my opinion, make this some for of suitable parliamentry gambit.

Withholding the truth - is lying.

The BBC - in my opinion again - did not "pursue the government" it reported that there was evidence the dossier was "sexed up" The government denied it. Later events would cast doubts on the validity of this claim. I would call the suppression of anti-government reporting one of the first acts of an oppresive regime. If it had been done by Michael Howard, there would have been uproar - but Tony's "a pretty straight guy" and somehow he's getting away with it.

Of course this is not Syria, or even France, we wouldn't have heard about Prescott's affairs, or visits to millionaire Texans awaiting the results of government legislation if it were. Though neither of those would bring the government down (John Profumo was born too early) but lying about the evidence for taking the country to war.... When there was a strong anti-war lobby ?

That had to be faced.

And -
""We already have the concept that the government can decide what's good for you - speed limits for example"

Oh, for goodness sake! The speed limit is not about government deciding "what's good for you". If you speed, you put much more than yourself at risk so the government is preventing you from putting others at risk. It's preventing you from infringing on others in a public place."

I said that driving is a licensed activity, but questioned if making people stop smoking was oppresive.

What I am say is that we expect the government to protect the general public from the excesses of others - you describe this as "In any free society your rights must not impinge on those of others." Which raises the whole issue of free, whose rights are more important, and who decides where the line is drawn.

I have already stated my opinion on the government's use of the anti-terror laws, and I see they did arrest a small group of passive demonstrators in Manchester. I accept that there is a trade off between rights and controls in a democratic society - I am expressing my concern at the place that trade-off is being pitched by this government. I was originally in favour of ID cards, but now so distrust this government that I am against them.

What about denying medical treatment to over-weight people ? Reasonable ?

Much though I disagree with the government, I'm pretty sick of BBC political news reporting, at least on Radio 4. Much of what seems to get reported as news is not an actual story, but what someone said about a story on the Today programme, and it's not uncommon for what gets reported as news on later bulletins to be a pretty selective reading/quoting of what was actually said.

Not infrquently, some minor thing happens, some third-rate journalist conjures up a 'XXXXgate' tag, and then within an hour, it's being reported as "people are calling this affair 'XXXXgate", omitting the fact that the 'people' concerned are just journalists.

The BBC did take a side over the 45 minutes claim Zagreb, it is called the the right side.

It was not a political act as the opposition werent questioning the claims so ti was not a political side there was no bias that the BBC should have been or should ever be censured for.

one love