David Davis Resignation Speech
“The name of my constituency is Haltemprice and Howden. Haltemprice is derived from the medieval proverb meaning ‘noble endeavour’. Up until yesterday I took the view that what we did in the House of Commons representing our constituents was a noble endeavour because for centuries our forebears defended the freedoms of the British people – or we did, up until yesterday.
“This Sunday is the anniversary of the Magna Carta, the document that guarantees that most fundamental of British freedoms, habeas corpus, the right not to be imprisoned by the state without charge or reason. Yesterday this House decided to allow the state to lock up potentially innocent citizens for up to six weeks without charge.
“The counterterrorism bill will in all probability be rejected by the House of Lords very firmly. What should they be there for if not to defend the Magna Carta. But because the impetus behind this is essentially political not security the government will be tempted to use the Parliament Act to overrule the Lords. It has no democratic mandate to do this since 42 days was not in the manifesto. Its legal basis is uncertain to say the least. But purely for political reasons this government’s going to do that.
“In truth 42 days is just one, perhaps the most salient example, of the insidious, surreptitious and relentless erosion of fundamental British freedoms.
“We will have shortly the most intrusive identity card system in the world. A CCTV camera for every 14 citizens, a DNA database bigger than any dictatorship has, with thousands of innocent children and a million innocent citizens on it. We’ve witnessed an assault on jury trials, that bulwark against bad law and its arbitrary abuse by the state, shortcuts for our justice system that make our justice system neither firm nor fair, and the creation of a database state, opening up our private lives to the prying eyes of official snoopers and exposing our personal data to careless civil servants and criminal hackers.
“The state has security powers to clamp down on peaceful protests and so-called hate laws which stifle debate, while those who serve violence get off scot-free. This cannot go on, it must be stopped and for that reason today I feel it is incumbent on me to take a stand.
“I will be resigning my membership of this House and I intend to force a by-election in Haltemprice and Howden. I will not fight it on the government’s general record; there is no point repeating Crewe and Nantwich. I will fight it on my personal record. I am just a piece in this great chess game. I will fight it. I will argue this by-election against the slow strangulation of fundamental British freedoms by this government. That may mean I have made my last speech to the House, possible. And of course that would be a cause of deep regret to me. But at least my electorate and the nation as a whole would have had the opportunity to debate and consider one of the most fundamental issues of our day. The ever-intrusive power of the state into our lives, the loss of privacy, the loss of freedom If they do send me back here, it will be with a single, simple message. That the monstrosity of al aw that we passed yesterday will not stand.”
Too Much To Ask For?
Apparently, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown responds directly (by telephone, no less) to members of the public who write to him. In addition, he also responds to questions via YouTube.
If I were a cynical person, I might think that all of this was just a clever PR exercise to make our PM look like he’s in touch with the common man.
But I digress.
To be honest, I’d rather our fearless leader spent his every waking moment trying to find ways to dig us out of the economic shithole we’re all in, rather than wasting precious time responding to inane individuals with nothing better to do.
Having said that, I suppose it is good to be able to have a discourse with your government leaders. In fact, I’m sure that any moment now, Gordon Brown is going to respond to the 4,772 people (and counting) who have signed a petition I created last year on the UK Government website requesting a clarification of the law surrounding photography in public places. To not do so would make him appear a hypocrite, wouldn’t it?
A new police poster campaign further highlights the divide between the law, and the interpretation of it by those who enforce it. As Bruce Schneier from The Guardian recently wrote:
“The 9/11 terrorists didn’t photograph anything. Nor did the London transport bombers, the Madrid bombers, or the liquid bombers arrested in 2006. Timothy McVeigh didn’t photograph the Oklahoma City Federal Building. The Unabomber didn’t photograph anything; neither did shoe-bomber Richard Reid. Photographs aren’t being found amongst the papers of Palestinian suicide bombers. The IRA wasn’t known for its photography. Even those manufactured terrorist plots that the US government likes to talk about — the Ft. Dix terrorists, the JFK airport bombers, the Miami 7, the Lackawanna 6 — no photography.”
I couldn’t have put it better myself. Top police chiefs have stated they want to return to “common sense policing”. Does this sound like common sense?
Do we really believe that all terrorists care about is blowing things up, including themselves? If so, why would they care about CCTV cameras and escape routes? In reality, terrorism is really all about psychology and creating change through fear.
The Government would love for us to believe that everyone is a potential terrorist, distracting us from the important issues, but when you look at the numbers, it really puts things in perspective.
They have already shown that they love to watch and control us. The scary thing is that “terrorism” has given them new reasons to justify both.
Photography Law
There are 4.3 million CCTV cameras spying on us here in the UK. That’s 20% of the worlds CCTV cameras, or to put it another way, 1 for every 14 residents. The average citizen is caught on camera 300 times a day.
Somehow we’ve allowed ourselves to be photographed more than any other country in the world, and to add insult to injury, we are questioned in great detail by police and security guards when we want to take our own photographs of landmarks, buildings and even our own homes.
We’re told it’s to prevent terrorism, but I would love to hear a reasoned and rational explanation as to how and when a camera was used in terrorism, and how preventing them from doing so would have changed the inevitable outcome.
And to be honest, even if these “terrographers” do use photos, so what? I imagine they use cars, computers, phones, and electricity. That makes pretty much everyone open to questioning. Right?
Besides, we all should know by now that you are far more likely to die of some more mundane reason like choking on a cheeseburger or being mowed down by a drunk driver. Terrorism is only scary because it has potential to be so much worse, but with a little perspective, you realise we just need to get on with our lives and stop living in fear.
We’re giving up more and more of our civil rights every day in the name of prevention of terrorism. Hell, I’m probably being flagged on a national database right now for writing this blog post. But I’ll let you into a little secret: there are two reasons why photographers are being harrassed and neither have anything to do with terrorism.
- Money & corporate greed.
- Fear & government control.
God, I’m really starting to sound like one of those conspiracy nutjobs.
I think you’d agree though, most good things are eventually spoiled by a greed for more money, particularly in the UK.
If you take a photo of a building or landmark, and then sell that to a stock library or other commercial entity, you are depriving the owners of that building of a potential source of income. This is why security guards are instructed to prevent people who “look pro”.
“Looking pro” comes down to four basic factors.
- Using an SLR camera.
- Having big glass.
- Using or carrying a tripod.
- Using pretentious words like “glass” instead of “lens”.
If you’re an serious amateur photographer (and there’s an awful lot of us), you can hardly avoid the first three points. The police will tell you a tripod creates a “health & safety” risk of people tripping. While that’s a valid point in a busy area, there are plenty of situations where a tripod can be used safely and represent no risk whatsoever. Besides, most of the people I know who have been stopped by police (including myself) weren’t even using or carrying a tripod.
Intimidating photographers not only makes the police feel good about themselves, like they are making some sort of difference, but it also gives the rest of us a nice reminder about the threat of terrorism.
Fear in the population is good. It eases the introduction of new laws such as America’s PATRIOT Act and the UK’s RIP Act.
Not a photographer? That changes nothing. This issue extends way beyond photographers rights into areas you do care about.
Drive a car? You should expect to be have your number plate photographed wherever you go. These cameras are currently used to track criminals, enforce congestion charging and monitor traffic flow. How long until the data can be used by private firms like insurance companies?
Maybe you’ve been on a plane recently? Then you already know what it’s like to be treated like a criminal.
If you use the internet, everything you do online is logged and accountable to you.
Or maybe you carry a mobile phone. Your movements can be tracked, every call and text logged, as well as an ability to remotely activate the microphone in your phone to listen in on you, even if your phone is switched off.
It’s amazing how quickly we all get used to this stuff.
Anyway, back to my point.
I think it’s time that photographers stand together and establish once and for all, what our rights actually are. With that in mind, I have submitted a petition on the UK Government website, requesting a specific answer to this issue.
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to clarify the laws surrounding photography in public places.
Through history, we have documented the world around us, whether through written word, art or photography.
Photography in particular has provided fantastic insights into the past and present, and is a hobby enjoyed by millions of people worldwide.
But today, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to take photos of our surroundings, particularly in cities like London.
In recent years, the price divide between professional and consumer equipment has blurred, and it’s quite common these days to see amateurs and hobbyists carrying around tripods, SLR cameras and a backpack full of equipment.
Yet, we are constantly harrassed by security guards and police officers in the name of preventing terrorism. They seem to be operating under a different interpretation of the law to the rest of us, believing that somehow the length of your lens, or size of your camera is relevant.
We would like clarification by the goverment on the law regarding photography of buildings and landmarks from public locations.
The petition can be found here, and I encourage anyone who has ever taken a photograph to sign it.