C'est parti...
Big Brother, 3 mars 2010 :
"As you may have read, two Muslim women refused to go through full-body scanners at Manchester Airport this week.[...] To state the obvious; I'm not supporting these women because they're Muslims. I don't care what they are. I would stand up for anyone in this situation. If the first people to refuse to be scanned said they were Jedi, or a made up religion like Scientology, then I'd be on their side. Because I don't think that anyone should be compelled to go through the scanners. I note with interest that one of the women refused to go through the scanner for medical reasons - well, given that the government has made compulsory for fliers that which the best available guidance says is dangerous, I think that that should not be discounted. But to my mind the main issue is the significant - and unjustifiable - intrusion into private lives, the extension yet again of power by the state over the life of the individual. I've made my position on this clear elsewhere and all I'd add is that, people still constantly say - "well, if it makes us a little safer, it's worth it" - "if it saves one life, stops one crime..." - I spend a lot of time pointing out just what a specious argument that is. Plainly, it would "save one child" to ban the motor car, or introduce a night curfew, but we don't, because it would be disproportionate and we have to get on with normal life, even if we incur a slightly higher element of risk in doing so. We don't encourage people to take wild risks with cars, but we don't make liberty-reducing and disproportionate laws, either. We should react to the threat of terrorism in just the same way.[...] What kind of a free society does the Government think it is “protecting”, when it invades our privacy like this?"
Big Brother, 3 mars 2010 :
"As you may have read, two Muslim women refused to go through full-body scanners at Manchester Airport this week.[...] To state the obvious; I'm not supporting these women because they're Muslims. I don't care what they are. I would stand up for anyone in this situation. If the first people to refuse to be scanned said they were Jedi, or a made up religion like Scientology, then I'd be on their side. Because I don't think that anyone should be compelled to go through the scanners. I note with interest that one of the women refused to go through the scanner for medical reasons - well, given that the government has made compulsory for fliers that which the best available guidance says is dangerous, I think that that should not be discounted. But to my mind the main issue is the significant - and unjustifiable - intrusion into private lives, the extension yet again of power by the state over the life of the individual. I've made my position on this clear elsewhere and all I'd add is that, people still constantly say - "well, if it makes us a little safer, it's worth it" - "if it saves one life, stops one crime..." - I spend a lot of time pointing out just what a specious argument that is. Plainly, it would "save one child" to ban the motor car, or introduce a night curfew, but we don't, because it would be disproportionate and we have to get on with normal life, even if we incur a slightly higher element of risk in doing so. We don't encourage people to take wild risks with cars, but we don't make liberty-reducing and disproportionate laws, either. We should react to the threat of terrorism in just the same way.[...] What kind of a free society does the Government think it is “protecting”, when it invades our privacy like this?"
Articles
