Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 9 Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds   


By       (Page 1 of 1 pages)   1 comment
Message Randolph Holhut
DUMMERSTON, Vt. - Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff recently floated the idea that our nation's domestic antiterrorism laws should be reviewed. He suggested that the United States might benefit from the sort of aggressive surveillance and arrest powers that British authorities used to foil the supposed plot to bomb as many as 10 airliners.

With Congress getting ready to question the scope of the Bush administration's powers in the so-called war on terror, a review certainly is in order. However, Britain shouldn't be held up as a model for the United States. That's because the Labour government of Prime Minister Tony Blair has shown an extraordinary streak of authoritarianism, and it started well before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

In Britain, under the Protection from Harassment Act of 1997, sending more than two unsolicited e-mails to a person constitutes harassment.

In Britain, under the Terrorism Act of 2000, police are allowed to stop and search people in a designated area, which could be set up anywhere without warning.

In Britain, under the Serious Organized Crime and Police Act of 2005, protests are banned within one kilometer - a little more than a half-mile - of Parliament Square, unless a permit is obtained from the commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.

In Britain, something called an Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) allows people to be hauled into court and threatened with prison terms of up to five years for offenses as trivial as playing a stereo too loudly or not keeping the front yard tidy. It can also be used to go after people who make remarks the government deems harmful to public order. And once a person is arrested for any offense, from littering to murder, that person must surrender a DNA sample to police, by force if necessary.

In Britain, under the Civil Contingencies Act of 2004, the prime minister has the power to declare a state of emergency and seize assets without compensation, ban public assemblies, forcibly move or detain people from designated areas, and set up special courts. Parliament does not have a say in the matter until seven days after such an emergency is declared.

In Britain, under the Inquiries Act of 2005, if Parliament decided to investigate the actions of a prime minister, the prime minister would have the power to set the terms of the investigation, suppress evidence, close the hearings to the public and even terminate the investigation without explanation.

Britain already has one of the most extensive surveillance camera systems in the world, but the Blair government is also pushing for a national ID card. The daily use of that card would be connected to a central government database that would effectively track and log the details of every person's life. Those details can be inspected at will by any law enforcement agency.

If Chertoff's model for the United States is Britain, we should all be concerned.

Under the guise of preserving social order, the Blair government has created a legal system where due process and the presumption of innocence no longer exists, where the standards of evidence are lowered to allow rumor and hearsay, where people can be punished even if no law was broken. His Britain is a place where total surveillance is becoming commonplace and individual rights come second to the needs and desires of the state.

Unfortunately, the British model looks mighty attractive to an administration that is more interested in preserving its power than in preserving the Constitution and has zero respect for civil liberties and the rule of law.

Is this the sort of nation we want to live in? Are we willing to allow our civil liberties to be taken away in the name of safety and security?

A free society always has to balance freedom and security, but it must always err on the side of freedom. But in fearful times, as Ben Franklin long ago observed, people are all too willing to sacrifice freedom for security. In the end, they end up with neither.
Rate It | View Ratings

Randolph Holhut Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Randolph T. Holhut has been a journalist in New England for more than 25 years. He edited "The George Seldes Reader" (Barricade Books). He can be reached at
Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)




Making a List: Who Are The Most Influential People in American History?

World War III: The GOP's Ultimate Trump Card?


To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Tell A Friend