The threat to our civil liberties from an overmighty state has been much exaggerated

The threat to our civil liberties from an overmighty state has been much exaggerated

19 Nov 2009

In the name of combating terrorism, keeping public order and often just plain old efficiency, the modern state is slowly but surely depriving us of our fundamental freedoms. That's the common lament of self-styled lovers of liberty. But is there any truth to it? Since 1997 we've had the Freedom of Information Act, the Data Protection Act, the Human Rights Act and many other pieces of legislation designed to strengthen our civil liberties. Isn’t there a case for saying our freedoms are more secure than they've ever been?

Speaking in favour of the motion are David Aaronovitch, Sir Ian Blair, and Conor Gearty. David Aaranovitch explains that over the past half century the state has become weaker, not stronger. Power has steadily been decentralised, and the government is under more scrutiny than ever before. For Aaronovitch, the citizens are the mighty, not the state. Ian Blair assesses the changing nature of contemporary crime, explaining that the collection of information via surveillance is a necessity that has solved, and will continue to solve and prevent, serious crimes that threaten society. Conor Gearty discusses different ways civil liberties can be approached. He refutes the notion that the yard stick 'golden age' ever existed and explains in detail how protective legislations have often been misunderstood.

Speaking against the motion are A C Grayling, David Davis, and Shami Chakrabarti.

A C Grayling discusses the fine line between civil liberties and security protection. He looks at the nature of crime and proportionality and questions the threat to society posed by terrorists, compared to the threat posed by bankers. Grayling lists the intrusive measures and Acts that the government has introduced in recent years. David Davis assesses the risk and effects of terrorism and counterterrorism laws to the individual. He criticises the detainment policy, explaining that it is no longer about security, but about politics, and that this reductionism has had dire effects of innocent people. Shami Chakrabarti explains that the motion is not simply a choice between security and liberty. She asks which is the greater risk – hyperbole or complacency, and explains that even if laws are passed with positive intentions they can be used to negative effect.

First vote: 137 For, 291 Against, 106 Don’t know

Final Vote: 220 For, 281 Against, 22 Don’t know

The motion is defeated by 61 votes.