innerhippy

There are people who spout the "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" attitude towards the pervasive intrusion of CCTV into our lives. We all know that this individualistic, naive and sanctimonious ideology will drive us head first into the Orwellian state to which the current administration seems committed. But for all the arguments of personal intrusion, there is a more malignant significance of cameras towards society, and it's one of ineffective substitution.

Our streets are becoming increasingly dependent on CCTV as the sole means of crime "prevention". Their original intention was to be used as evidence in the law courts to support the judiciary – and not as the prime means for law enforcement. There are many aspects to CCTV that are damaging and counter productive, but in particular they alienate the general public, good and bad alike, from the tangible presence of authority. Having an authority in the public domain reminds people that they are accountable for their actions. This could be a simple as having a conductor on a bus, but we've done away with them in order to save money. It could be having a supervisor in a train station until the last train leaves, but we've done away with them also – to save money. Or perhaps the good old bobby-on-the-beat, but we don't really have those either, because we're trying to save money.

So what is the cost of saving all this money? An environment where people no longer feel protected by the system of authority and where kids/hoodies/drunks/idiots/vandals are empowered to assume ownership of these public spaces – all because the boundaries have been removed. Cameras do not provide boundaries. They provide an intrusive and antagonistic presence that people do not respect or trust.

And what of the perpetrators? Part of growing up involves the discovery of freedom away from the confines of the home, and that requires young people to explore for themselves what it is actually like to exist in a sociological framework. They need to discover both the opportunities and the limits of this new existence outside the very parental boundaries that they are starting to challenge. And as they are unsure, they are shy. Place them under "observation" and they will naturally want to hide and conceal; enter the fearful hoodie. But they still need control and authority to guide them through this emerging phase in their life. Cameras do not provide this. So left unchecked they seek boundaries with increasingly extreme behaviour. It is then left to the adult public to enforce these boundaries; but they are all too often afraid of the consequences, as had been mercilessly exploited by the media after a recent spate of stabbings in London by gangs of youths. The exacerbation of fear only sells papers which to hide behind. To make matters worse, these reluctant boundary enforcers don't get effective support from the authorities, should they need it, so the cycle is perpetuated.

What you end up with is a runaway youth culture blindly chasing terrified adults. It would be good if sometimes the adults were able to stop dead in their tracks and challenge the pursuers. But no, we are being told to rely on cost-effective and ineffective CCTVs instead.

Cameras do have a place in the modern urban landscape, but only as a tool that supports an age-old tradition of social education, and is certainly no replacement. Social progress is achieved by harmonising the duality of traditions with innovation, its about time the Whitehall bean-counters got off their comfy chairs and took a good look around.

There has been a great deal written recently on the bungling police tactics used in the raid on a house in Forest Gate (in a nutshell: 250 police pile into a house, shoot a Muslim man for no apparent reason, drag two guys down stairs, arrest them for terrorist offences, trash their house, interrogate them for a week and then release them with no charge, followed by a hearty "sorry"). Not exactly great PR for the police. Their catch-all excuse is, naturally, fighting terrorism.

Well, just in case you think you might be safe from suspicion if you're a non-Muslim, then think again. There seems to be little the Police won't do under the "terrorism" banner.

Just the other day I was looking out of the window in a residential street in Hackney, East London. I was witnessing a vehicle towing truck preparing to pluck a car from the road and take it away. Looking closely, I saw that the car had an occupant: a terrified woman clutching a new born baby in her arms. I decided, naturally, that this was far too good a photo opportunity to pass, so I grabbed by camera and went out onto the road. By some bizarre coincidence, by the time I got outside, a van full of police officers had also decided to take a closer look.

I snapped away at this strange scene, trying to capture the poor woman's horror as the burly removal men in yellow jackets wrestled with various lifting contraptions around her car. Then a police officer approached me and demanded that I stop taking photographs. As far as I was aware I didn't consider this an offence so I naturally refused. He then produced his notebook and demanded my name and address. What had I done wrong, I asked? His answer was "hostile reconnaissance". He then informed me that "it was a tactic used by terrorists" and that I was acting "suspiciously". So now I'm a terrorist for taking photographs! I tried to point out that the police were in the way of my photographs and that it was not my intention to photograph them, but he still insisted that I was conducting hostile reconnaissance. A small exchange of heated words between myself and this moron was halted by a second police officer who formally instructed me to "fuck off" and took his colleague away.

I know this is hardly earth shattering news, but it does show that the police will use "terrorism" for pretty much anything nowadays. If you have a similar story then please, please tell all.

"Police Intelligence" – the greatest oxymoron since "Friendly Fire"

So, now the UN think that Guantanamo should be closed down immediately and have even had the balls to say so in public. What's more, they have done so not in diplomatic parlance but in good old plain English. For a nation like the US who likes to "spread democracy and freedom" all over the world (gee thanks guys), the concept of having a torture camp with absolutely no legal process is nothing but total, mind boggling hypocrisy. What's more, it's utterly counter-productive in their so called "war on terror".

Everyone with more than a couple of brain cells knows it should be closed down. Government minister Peter Hain admitted that it should be closed down (after being slightly cornered by Mr Dimbleby on Question Time last week) and said that he thought Blair shared his view.

Yesterday, when Blair was asked outright whether he thought it should be closed down, he refused to say so. Instead he wriggled out of the question by mumbling something about it being an 'anomaly' that 'should be resolved sooner or later', blah, blah, blah, bollocks.

To call this state sanctioned abuse on human right an 'anomaly' is repugnant and shows once more that Blair has had his spine replaced with a bag of insipid jelly. Does he really think that Guantanamo is ok? If he doesn't then for God's sake SAY SO! And he should have the guts to tell Bush straight. Let's all see just how 'special' our relationship really is.

The conversation could go like this:

Ring ring…

"Hello George, it's Tony"
"Erm, sorry, Tony….?"
"Yes Tony…..Tony Blair…."
"Oh yes, how's Florida?"
"No, from London….in England?"
"Yes yes yes, I know London's in England. Everyone knows that! Great to hear from you! How's tricks?"
"Umm, well there seems to be a problem about your little camp in Cuba"
"I didn't think I had a holiday camp in Cuba. I've got one in a place called David…"
"No, no, camp X-Ray…Guantanamo Bay?"
"Oh sorry, yes, yes, yes…the place where we put the bad guys".
"Well the problem is that there's a lot of people who think it's wrong and that it should be closed down"
"What people think this? Is it those moaning liberals again?"
"No, actually its the UN"
"The UN? Really? Now where've I head of them before…"
"And what's more George, I think it's wrong and it will actually undermine our efforts on our war. It kind of contradicts everything we stand for in a democracy"
"But where we gonna put the god-damn terrorists?"
"That's the point really, we don't know that they are terrorists"
"Sure we do – we caught them red handed! Of course they're terrorists! They had weapons ready to kill our brave soldiers. I said we'd smoke 'em out and we did!"
"I suspect they had weapons because they didn't like the fact that we were invading their country. Anyway, the consensus is that if we think they are terrorists then we should at least put them on trial….or let them go"
"We can't put them on trial, stupid – we have no evidence!"
"Mr President, you're nuts."
"Love you too Tony. Just remember who controls your military hardware. Anyway I gotta run now, Cheney's asked me to go hunting with him and I'm a little nervous…"
Click.

Well, that's a conversation that should happen, but probably won't because we have a weak apologist of a prime minister, untroubled by morality and social justice.

With all the furore concerning the cartoons that were published in a Danish newspaper (that first appeared in September!), can I find them on the interweb? Nope, I cannot. But certainly not for the lack of trying. I'm intrigued as to how a cartoon can be so offensive (I'm sure I'm not alone) and I would very much like to form my own opinion on them. If anyone knows where they are then please say!

The wider issue is a cultural one and slightly more serious. British culture has always used humour as a highly effective method of offering opinions, breaking taboos, stimulating debate, not to mention having a good ol' giggle. Humour is often used to exaggerate a sensitive issue that would otherwise cause offence and should not be taken at face value. That's the way we do things in this reserved country and not only is it very healthy for democracy, it is an essential tool of debate and freedom of speech. Satire is one of the most effective political tools that we have for stimulating debate and accountability – the brilliant The Thick Of It is a perfect example.

If you don't like it, then don't look at it. I wonder how many enraged fatwa'ing Muslims actually read The Satanic Verses? How did Christians react when The Life Of Brian was released? The sacking of the editor from the Danish newspaper after the cartoon's publication was a spineless mistake. It would be a good idea for all British newspapers to demonstrate a show of solidarity and simultaneously publish the cartoons.

Muslims should like it or lump it, but that's the way we do things in our culture. Respect is mutual understanding that may cause disagreement that should provoke only discussion. But instead we get the predictable burning of flags and attacks upon embassies. This shows a contemptuous lack of tolerance that perhaps speaks volumes of their own culture.