Show Notes

• Archived Blog Post

  Date / Time: 5/5/2009 7:36 PM UTC

  Security v liberty
  

  Security v liberty

  It is often said that there is a trade-off to be had between security and liberty – but this polarisation is not helpful

  Comments (…)

  • 
  • • Hugo Rosemont
    • guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 5 May 2009 08.25 BST

  It is often said that that there is a trade–off to be had between liberty and security but in fact the debate has become unnecessarily polarised. Why can we as a society only have one without the other?

  New thinking is needed to ensure that liberty and security are tied into our national security framework. It is essential that legitimate concerns about terrorism and state infringements into privacy are accommodated in security policy.

  The British government analyses the security threats facing the country in the national security strategy (NSS). As Henry Porter noted on Thursday, challenges range from terrorism, major floods and even current concerns over a possible swine flu pandemic.

  This same government document also recognises that society's values must underpin the country's security policy. The NSS stated that the values of "human rights, the rule of law, legitimate and accountable government, justice, freedom, tolerance and opportunity for all" form "the basis of our security, as well as our well-being and our prosperity." The UK's counter terrorism strategy Contest 2 also states that it "seeks to preserve and protect the rights to which we are accustomed because it is on these rights that our freedoms depend".

  So there is a generally agreed recognition of the need for a fine balancing act between liberty and security. Why, then, is there an apparent disconnect between how to preserve our civil liberties while at the same time protecting our security? I would suggest four reasons:

  1) We are clinging to outdated notions of security

  The government has been wrestling with how to conceptualise security. Security is not defined in the national security strategy but there are clues to a definition through the national security objective of: "protecting the United Kingdom and its interests, enabling its people to go about their daily lives freely and with confidence, in a more secure, stable, just and prosperous world." But this objective fails to differentiate between the protection of the country, its interests and its citizens. In the absence of a clear state security aim, how can we ensure the liberty of the individual in our society?

  2) The security v liberty debate urges us to choose sides

  It is unclear how well the opposite "sides" of the debate are talking to each other. The Convention on Modern Liberty held in February 2009 seemed to include limited participation from government. Was this because government ministers did not want to attend or were they not invited? Is nostalgia for a golden age of liberty being scrutinised effectively?

  3) Media desire for conflict between security and liberty

  Assertions that the British state's actions are comparable to levels of repression in Zimbabwe make for good headlines. More thorough, balanced, analyses are not given airtime. Proponents of a more balanced view cannot communicate in the current media climate of extremes.

  4) Globalisation affects security and liberty

  We are devoting insufficient attention to the impact that globalisation might bring to notions of liberty and security. Any multilateral security initiative tends to be treated with automatic suspicion. Too little attention is paid to how the UK must find ways to cooperate with other nations on security matters.

  So how can the debate move forward? To start we need more clarity on what we mean by "security". The government should consider consulting widely on whether to include the protection of the citizen's security, liberty and aspirations as its central security definition. The right to life is, after all, the first right defined in the European convention on human rights.

  This change would allow rational, meaningful and more relevant debate on the threats facing the individual in society. Violent extremists' principles, aims and actions could be rejected more wholeheartedly by politicians and proponents of civil liberties. A focus on the protection of the individual and not the state would serve as a unifying factor.

  For its part, society as made up of individuals would begin to accept its share of responsibility in deciding the levels of risk that it will accept in the new security landscape. The individual, not the state in isolation, would determine the extent to which the right to life should drive new security measures.

  How does this happen? The debate should start now on whether the protection of the individual's security and liberty should be a central aim of the national security strategy. The second iteration of the NSS is scheduled to be published in the summer of 2009. It should not be formed in the corridors of Whitehall. Public consultation should be seriously considered. The British public should be the judge of whether and how its liberty should be included as a central concept in the nation's framework for security.

  • Tags:
  • WE NEVER HAVE FREEDO
  • Permalink