Is this a rare piece of honesty from a politician? Geoff Hoon said he, and presumably he spoke for the government, would be prepared to go “quite a long way” in undermining civil liberties.
Jacqui Smith tends to go for the denial approach, talking about appropriate checks and balances, about how new phonecall/text message/internet database won’t be accessible by local councils (who are using previous ‘anti-terrorist’ legislation to stop dog mess) and generally trying to deny that civil liberties are affected.
At least Hoon seems to admit that it would affect civil liberties and that he and the government just don’t care. He even came up with, “the biggest civil liberty of all is not to be killed by a terrorist”!
Now is there any act of government intervention that cannot be justified by such spurious claims? You could save me from terrorists by imprisoning everyone in the country, but I think that would be a step too far. Just as I think this is a step too far. It is typical statist thinking that redefines words like freedom and liberty to mean the opposite.
Restricting my choices, interfering in my life, monitoring my every move for my own good, in order to force me into a pre-determined outcome that you have decided is ‘more free’ is just plain stupid. I don’t believe these laws will stop terror, I believe the costs outweigh any gains. I do not trust you politicians not to take more and more power, or to abuse it, or to be competent enough to not let it fall into the wrong hands. There has been a spectacularly bad record with previous legislation of this nature and I do not want any more. Leave me alone!