44 AuthorisationsBasically "if you're in a specific, police-designated area, and the cop is feeling ornery or having a bad day, you're going to jail. Oh, by the way: we're not going to tell where those areas are! Have a nice day."
(1) An authorisation under this subsection authorises any constable in uniform to stop a vehicle in an area or at a place specified in the authorisation and to search—
(a) the vehicle;
(b) the driver of the vehicle;
(c) a passenger in the vehicle;
(d) anything in or on the vehicle or carried by the driver or a passenger.
(2) An authorisation under this subsection authorises any constable in uniform to stop a pedestrian in an area or at a place specified in the authorisation and to search—
(a) the pedestrian;
(b) anything carried by him.
(3) An authorisation under subsection (1) or (2) may be given only if the person giving it considers it expedient for the prevention of acts of terrorism.
(4) An authorisation may be given—
(a) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of a police area outside Northern Ireland other than one mentioned in paragraph (b) or (c), by a police officer for the area who is of at least the rank of assistant chief constable;
(b) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of the metropolitan police district, by a police officer for the district who is of at least the rank of commander of the metropolitan police;
(c) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of the City of London, by a police officer for the City who is of at least the rank of commander in the City of London police force;
(d) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of Northern Ireland, by a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary who is of at least the rank of assistant chief constable.
(5) If an authorisation is given orally, the person giving it shall confirm it in writing as soon as is reasonably practicable.
These powers, which are so obviously threatening to liberty, have been challenged. The European Court of Human Rights agrees - although it does so on the basis that there's no way of reporting abuse.
All cops, regardless of location, seem to have a thing about cameras. If you try to take certain pictures in New York City - there's a strong chance you'll be having an unpleasant, one-sided, chat with a cop. (No, I haven't tried it.)
Now, cops need their authority. They can't work without it. The trouble is that they don't always recognize when they are abusing that authority. With something like Section 44, a cop is encouraged to act conservatively, it being easier to fine someone because they "Caused harassment, alarm and distress in a public place." (Video.) Those sort of charges are a neat catch-all; the one I hear and read about most often over here is "disturbing the peace". Same thing, just more succinct. It's become the preferred method for the cops to assert "well, we can't get you on anything, so we'll just stick it to you, anyway." It also helps avert any blame, or responsibility, for their actions. They can then say "See! This person was disturbing the peace - who are you going to believe? Us or a criminal?"
John Yates, Scotland Yard's Assistant Police Commissioner, sent a memo out telling the cops to be a little more judicious in their use of Section 44. If you think that'll solve, or even mitigate, the problem, I have a very nice bridge to sell you. What is needed is a very clear instruction, one that the cops and the public can understand, and some way the public can report abuse. Probably some signs would be useful - if you're going to be a police state, why not just admit it?
Britons and visitors to British shores are the most watched people on the planet. Even the Chinese don't watch their citizens the way British cops do. The balance between government power and individual liberty is not really a discussion in the UK - the government basically dictates what your liberties are, and you accept them. They watch you on the motorway (freeway), have an automated system capture you if you exceed the speed limit, have those big blue cameras that can track you wherever you go, and finally have Section 44 to do with as they please.
Some might argue that the sheer density of people makes it impossible to track everyone. I disagree. That's a fairly simple technical problem. The British government is not that far from being able to understand the movements of an entire population! What happens after that? Coupled with the infamous opacity of British government (yeah, I know there's some effort to make it appear that government is becoming more transparent), and it all becomes very scary.
Part of a group that agitates for change? The cops can track you, and continually stop you. (It's happened.) Hold an unpopular view? The cops can keep an eye on whom you meet, and then watch them, too. Advocate for a substantial change in government? Publicly protest the cops? They know who you are, and where you live.
Some people might be under the impression that as long as the cops, and other legal authorities, don't stop you protesting, from voicing your opinion - then the cameras and all are essentially meaningless. They're not. Once you give the police the power to monitor your every move, your every trip, you essentially hand them the keys to your life. In the US, there's a strange law that allows the FBI to investigate you in a disturbingly thorough way - and they can force you to be an unwilling participant in that investigation. (5th Amendment? Wozzat?) The law has been challenged, especially after it was discovered that the FBI egregiously abused their power, but as far as I know, it's still on the books. We, the public, don't even know how many of these special warrants are issued (unless Congress gets curious, and when was the last time that happened?) - the whole thing is shrouded in a very disturbing secrecy.
Britain is one step ahead of that - they can watch you without any oversight whatsoever. Indeed, there is no oversight. (There was a minor scandal some time ago, where some cops were admonished because they used their cameras to peer into the bedrooms of young women. I haven't heard of anything like that for some time. Which makes me wonder if the cops suddenly became purer than angels (yeah, that'll happen), or that they have figured out how to avoid having such incidents discovered. (Want to make a bet on which one it is?)
I have no issue with the cops using legal tools to figure out who's a terrorist, or criminal. What I do object to is the assumption that because the problem is big, the authorities need to monitor everyone! I have no desire for the cops to intrude in my law-abiding life. If the New Jersey State Troopers suddenly put a camera at the end of my road, it would be a draconian state intrusion into my privacy. Even if they gave me all their assurances that they don't do anything with the footage, unless they need to - they are still intruding. There's not much distance from monitoring the movements of a person, or a group, to controlling it. We see that every time a large economic protest happens, in Britain and the US. (And elsewhere.) Section 44 bridges that gap quite nicely.
What's especially alarming is that I don't see much, any, protest against this government intrusion. The speed cameras have become a draconian tax source. The police monitors have become an ugly part of the landscape. Taking pictures can lead to your arrest. The police can figure out if you're a person of interest simply because they can monitor your movements. Press photographers get harassed and arrested simply because the police can do that. People who protest nuclear weapons or the Iraq war, or whatever, suddenly become known to the cops. They get stopped randomly, simply because their car pops up in a secret police database.
It has happened.
In the name of guarding liberty, Britain is on a solid march to a nightmare of government monitoring and harassment of those deemed "troublemakers". Indeed, between the cameras and Section 44, it's possible to argue that Britain has become a police state. Most people won't notice, the cops aren't interested in them. Indeed, a few well-publicized criminals have been brought to justice because of the cameras. Everyone feels safer, and the monitoring assumes a favorable context. But a few, who simply might be challenging the right of a government to intrude into the lives of its citizens, become police targets. Their rights are not exactly infringed, but they are inconvenienced by the power of the state.
Where does it stop? When an Italian art student can be arrested for taking pictures of buildings it's not a question of wondering if it has gone too far. When a press photographer can be stopped and searched for taking pictures of a famous London landmark, along with other equally ridiculous examples, (tourists being forced to delete pictures, someone being arrested for taking pictures of a fish and chip shop, a TV crew being harassed, and so many others it's impossible to list them!) it's really not a question if the state has too much power. That's been asserted.
When that power can be nominally, and uselessly, curtailed by a memo from a top cop - we're not discussing a system that protects people. We're discussing a system that would make the old Soviet KGB envious, and probably provides a model for the Chinese authorities to use.
Activists argue about a Tory government, versus a Labour one. I don't see anyone discussing the protection of British liberty. I don't see these activists railing against government intrusion. The sentiment seems to be that the government should be able to trust the people. People should always, but always, be suspicious of government. But many British activists, especially on the left, seem to be unaware that (to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson) an energetic government is always oppressive. They keep arguing for a more active government!
The British police have demonstrated a willingness, an eagerness, to use powers that far exceed any reasonableness. And no one is making it a campaign issue. That's the truly sad thing about it all.
Carolyn Ann
PS Don't believe the cops have dictatorial powers? Check out this. Read the bit about what the cop can do. Compare it to what rights you have.
0 comments:
Post a Comment