Civil Liberties: The Misplaced Crusade of a Generation of Liberals
In this post, I will outline my opposition to Liberal views on civil liberties. It is my view that the absolutist Liberal aim to prevent such things as DNA databases & CCTV coverage is a grossly incoherent position.
I will also forward an argument that any opposition to legislation based on its future misuse is an irrelevant worry.
Civil Liberties: The Misplaced Crusade of a Generation of Liberals
Firstly, it is my civil liberty to be free from violence upon my person. This is at obvious practical conflict with my rights to freedom, as summed up by our need for law enforcement. This is a point surely everyone agrees upon; no-one believes that my right to act freely, if violent, can be tolerated without an intervention by the state. You would have to be a 100% blood-hungry anarchist to take this view, and i suspect i do not know anyone who claims to believe it.
As we have established that there is therefore a responsibility for law enforcement which encroaches upon absolute freedom; we must decide the extent of this encroachment. This is a simple utilitarian decision; there is no scope for absolute choice between the two principles in conflict.
Thus opposing the very existence of CCTV and the DNA database under every circumstance is not a tenable position. Indeed, this is obvious if given an extreme scenario: CCTV installation and DNA databases to catch a serial killer who is killing 5 people per night, terrorising a neighbourhood. So one is forced to look at the pros and cons of having these systems in place, by judging their impact on the two principles 1) right to freedom 2) right to law enforcement.
Looking at DNA database, the right to freedom suggests your DNA is your own and that only you may decide who holds that information. (Now this in itself might not even be a justifiable position, but let's assume it is.) Seeing as we must take a utilitarian approach, we must decide on the disadvantages of having your DNA on a database. I can't really think how this could adversely affect you. Your DNA is only really good at ruling you into a specific spatio-temporal location. The person using the DNA database can therefore only find out if you've been in a specific place over a specific time period. How could this possibly affect your life? It certainly isn't a greater evil than the goodness the DNA database offers in law enforcement. A DNA database may affect your life in the event of a future dictator, but as I will discuss this is not an adequate reason for opposing the DNA database now.
Benign Governments & Future Dictators: The Future is Not Now
One argument is that the DNA database can be used to facilitate genocide. The response to this claim is simple: If someone were to be in the position to start engaging in genocide in this country, the presence or absence of a DNA database previously is not going to stop them. They can simple start a DNA database upon its requirement for their purposes; any government with the power to be doing such evil will be able to pass legislation to facilitate them in the pursuit of that evil. Opposing civil liberty encroachments does not therefore prevent future evil from occurring.
This kneejerk reaction that something as abstract as DNA identity must be protected from everything at all costs is just madness.
Almost all of the civil liberties that the new coalition wish to protect are of similar minor importance. ID cards, CCTV, ContactPoint database (which can only realistically be used to protect children from communication failures of the state). Notable exceptions are so few. One exception is 28 day detention without trial. The benefits of this may clearly be outweighed. However, in Labour's defence, this is due to expire this year anyway, and the Labour party quite clearly were against anything more - they voted against their own bill to extend the time frame.
Indeed, the argument of benign intent can be used to justify seemingly startling rights violations such as trial without jury. People who are going to use the legislation to oppress their citizens will be able to do so without the prior presence of this legislation. If a government is of benign intent there is no problem with such legislation...
I will also forward an argument that any opposition to legislation based on its future misuse is an irrelevant worry.
Civil Liberties: The Misplaced Crusade of a Generation of Liberals
Firstly, it is my civil liberty to be free from violence upon my person. This is at obvious practical conflict with my rights to freedom, as summed up by our need for law enforcement. This is a point surely everyone agrees upon; no-one believes that my right to act freely, if violent, can be tolerated without an intervention by the state. You would have to be a 100% blood-hungry anarchist to take this view, and i suspect i do not know anyone who claims to believe it.
As we have established that there is therefore a responsibility for law enforcement which encroaches upon absolute freedom; we must decide the extent of this encroachment. This is a simple utilitarian decision; there is no scope for absolute choice between the two principles in conflict.
Thus opposing the very existence of CCTV and the DNA database under every circumstance is not a tenable position. Indeed, this is obvious if given an extreme scenario: CCTV installation and DNA databases to catch a serial killer who is killing 5 people per night, terrorising a neighbourhood. So one is forced to look at the pros and cons of having these systems in place, by judging their impact on the two principles 1) right to freedom 2) right to law enforcement.
Looking at DNA database, the right to freedom suggests your DNA is your own and that only you may decide who holds that information. (Now this in itself might not even be a justifiable position, but let's assume it is.) Seeing as we must take a utilitarian approach, we must decide on the disadvantages of having your DNA on a database. I can't really think how this could adversely affect you. Your DNA is only really good at ruling you into a specific spatio-temporal location. The person using the DNA database can therefore only find out if you've been in a specific place over a specific time period. How could this possibly affect your life? It certainly isn't a greater evil than the goodness the DNA database offers in law enforcement. A DNA database may affect your life in the event of a future dictator, but as I will discuss this is not an adequate reason for opposing the DNA database now.
Benign Governments & Future Dictators: The Future is Not Now
One argument is that the DNA database can be used to facilitate genocide. The response to this claim is simple: If someone were to be in the position to start engaging in genocide in this country, the presence or absence of a DNA database previously is not going to stop them. They can simple start a DNA database upon its requirement for their purposes; any government with the power to be doing such evil will be able to pass legislation to facilitate them in the pursuit of that evil. Opposing civil liberty encroachments does not therefore prevent future evil from occurring.
This kneejerk reaction that something as abstract as DNA identity must be protected from everything at all costs is just madness.
Almost all of the civil liberties that the new coalition wish to protect are of similar minor importance. ID cards, CCTV, ContactPoint database (which can only realistically be used to protect children from communication failures of the state). Notable exceptions are so few. One exception is 28 day detention without trial. The benefits of this may clearly be outweighed. However, in Labour's defence, this is due to expire this year anyway, and the Labour party quite clearly were against anything more - they voted against their own bill to extend the time frame.
Indeed, the argument of benign intent can be used to justify seemingly startling rights violations such as trial without jury. People who are going to use the legislation to oppress their citizens will be able to do so without the prior presence of this legislation. If a government is of benign intent there is no problem with such legislation...