November 29, 2008
Some Implications of the Arrest of Damian Green
EDIT: As Peter points out in the comments, it was a MISTAKE (shared with several Saturday newspaper commentators) to say Damian Green was arrested under counter-terrorism legislation. He was not, though counter-terrorism officers did assist in his arrest. Make what you will of this post in that light.
Continuing to operate on the assumption that Damian Green was arrested for releasing documents that embarrassed the government – also known as doing his job – and isn’t guilty of doing something like endangering national security by releasing sensitive defence documents, let’s consider some implications.
Lots of attention has been paid to the fact there must almost certainly be resignations. Michael Martin seems most likely to fall: given that he authorised the arrest and searches, combined with the fact he is a particular hate figure for the Opposition, it is widely expected he will have to go. Jacqui Smith is also under threat, as many have commented. Perhaps even Brown will be under pressure – see an excellent article here (yes, even I read Conservative Home occasionally).
Many words have already been given over to the nature of this arrest. Nick Clegg said it was more reminiscent of a “tinpot dictatorship” than a modern democracy. Conservatives have been gleefully chucking around the term “Stalinst”. Although it is unhelpful in the long term to use such extreme language, it has to be said that these commentators still have a very large point.
What I want to focus on here, however, hasn’t received much attention generally: the implications for trusting the word of a government which has proven itself to have more authoritarian designs than any other in history.
When Brown froze the assets of Icesave using counter-terrorism legislation two months ago, most people were happy to turn a blind eye. It was an economic crisis, we were told, something had to be done fast and this was the only way to do it. So when Brown explicitly invoked legislation designed for one thing and used it for something completely different, most people let him off.
We should not turn a second blind eye. That Damian Green was arrested under counter-terrorism legislation is not only scandalous in itself (for, in lieu of further revelations, he was doing nothing like aiding or abetting terrorism), it is a dire warning to us all. This government wants to introduce a raft of authoritarian, liberty-restriction legislation, foremost being 42-day detention for suspected terrorists, and I.D. cards for all. The government has frequently assured us that when such things are introduced they will be carefully regulated. 42-day detention will just be for dangerous terrorist suspects. I.D. card biometric information will be carefully regulated, and passed on only to approved agencies when absolutely necessary.
The use of counter-terrorism legislation to arrest a sitting front-bench MP for embarrassing the government puts the lie to the government’s claims, and should make us all suspicious of their proposed legislation. Whether ministers ordered the police to arrest Green, whether they knew about his imminent arrest in advance, or whether they knew nothing, it doesn’t matter. The fact is legislation passed on the justification of it being necessary for national security has now been hopelessly abused, whether the government authorised the abuse or not. Why should we believe the case will be any different with 42-day detention or I.D. cards?
Peter said,
November 29, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Unity over at Liberal Conspiracy claims that Green wasn’t arrested under anti-terror legislation.
http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2008/11/28/how-green-is-my-jail-cell/
He writes:
“Having scooted round a few blogs, there are a couple of factual errors and misconceptions doing the rounds that need to put straight.
First, Green has NOT been arrested using ‘anti-terror laws’ as some are trying to suggest, he has been arrested on suspicion of committing a couple of common law offences which amount to nothing more the suggestion that he may have been involved in faciliating a breach of trust by a public official, i.e. petty corruption NOT terrorism.
As for what Green WAS arrested by officers from the Met’s Counter Terrorism Command, this is purely a matter of history coupled with a quirk arising from a recent Police reorganisation.
Because there’s the possibility that Green’s alleged source could be charged with an offence under the Official Secrets Act, responsbility for the investigation of this case falls to what used to be Special Branch, which has always held the responsibility for OSA cases since the very first such Act, which was passed in 1889.
However, in 2006, Special Branch was merged with the Met’s Anti-Terrorism Branch (which actually used be the investigative arm of Special Branch until it was separated off in 1972) to form a new Counter Terrorism Command.
Hence the arrival of a bunch of superannuated Plods on Green’s doorstep rather than the common or garden variety.”
Grace said,
November 29, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Given that we have “a government which has proven itself to have more authoritarian designs than any other in history”, can’t you see why people have grave concerns about the opt-out system of organ donation? If we accept the idea that the state has a presumed right to our organs, then how long will it be before they start making it more and more difficult to opt-out, and then finally making it impossible? -I wonder if they’ll even use conter-terrorism legislation on the unwilling then.
Paul said,
November 30, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Grace,
You make an interesting point, but here’s why I disagree.
Firstly, I think the risks are lower with organ donation. I said in my post on that matter that I’m reluctant to use the language of the state ‘owning’ our bodies, though you are probably right to speak of ‘presumed right’ to dead people’s organs. Basically, I don’t think that this presumed right will lead to the gross violation of other rights. E.g. I don’t think that if we have presumed consent, then the state will start stealing organs from living people, or purposefully disregarding the wishes of those who have opted out. By contrast, I am far more suspicious that laws regarding 42-day detention and ID cards will be abused, abused quickly, and with very damaging results to general civil liberties. Whereas the police will often have a vested interest in abusing things like 42-day detention and ID card info, I don’t believe there is an analogy with individual surgeons and organ donation.
Secondly, all legislation can be mistakenly employed. If we switch to opt-out, there will undoubtedly be mistakes. However, I think that the mistakes with regards to opt-out organ donation are less troublesome than those regarding ID cards and 42-day detention. While the family of a person who did not want their organs removed after death would likely be very upset if through error they were removed, whilst regretable, I feel this is hardly as serious as the implications of “mistakes” over 42-day detention and especially the information stored on proposed ID cards and who that information might “mistakenly” be given to.
But ultimately these are empirical questions, and i’m operating only on my own based-on-very-little guestimations. If you could provide me with empirical evidence to the contrary, i’d have to revise my position.
Grace said,
December 2, 2008 at 6:50 pm
“Whereas the police will often have a vested interest in abusing things like 42-day detention and ID card info, I don’t believe there is an analogy with individual surgeons and organ donation”
(1) It’s not just individual surgeons who would make the decisions. The NHS is very politicised – Cameron’s frequent attacks on Labour for IT problems, waiting lists etc. If eroding the right to opt-out would result in shorter waiting times for transplants/fewer people dying then there may be an incentive for the government to do so.
(2) As hospital “league tables” become more and more widespread, I wouldn’t be surprised to see managers pressuring surgeons to bend the rules to ensure higher survival rates and shorter waiting lists.
Also, whether these concerns are unfounded is to some extent irrelevant. Many people – whipped up by the Daily Mail etc – will be worried that their organs will be taken without real consent. And this is why the only possible negative consequence of opt-out is not that “the family of a person who did not want their organs removed after death” might be “upset”. There is a real possibility that trust in the medical profession will suffer, and that the frail and ill will worry about doctors overriding their wishes and taking their organs without consent. You asked for empirical evidence – I couldn’t find any without subscribing to an expensive medical journal (I think not!) but the presumed-consent laws were repealed within the year in Brazil (1998) because of this issue.
Paul said,
December 2, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Grace,
Surely just because the Daily Mail et al may try to whip up public hysteria, that is no reason to not do something? After all, if something is right, we should do it, and face-down those who would try to denigrate the desired outcomes. (To be very naughty and draw an analogy designed to provoke: surely just because some hypothetical terrorists demand that we take away the rights of women or else they will launch massive co-ordinated attacks on major UK cities, that is not a reason to take away the rights of women, but rather to affirm those rights and face-down the terrorists?)
“the presumed-consent laws were repealed within the year in Brazil (1998) because of this issue.”
True, but the UK is not Brazil. People may not trust their politicians in this country, and may have serious legitimate complaints about the health service, but there is hardly a legitimate analogy with the Brazilian state.
Grace said,
December 2, 2008 at 11:28 pm
“Surely just because the Daily Mail et al may try to whip up public hysteria, that is no reason to not do something? After all, if something is right, we should do it, and face-down those who would try to denigrate the desired outcomes.”
But people only defend presumed consent on consequentialist grounds – so, if opt-out would result in worse consequences than opt-in – if it can be proved that some people will distrust doctors and be scared of being admitted into hospital because of uncounterable Daily Mail scaremongering and that this negative outcome is not outweighed by any benefits of opt-out (eg more transplants) – then that is a good reason for not allowing it.
Your anaIogy is not suitable because I would not defend the rights of women on consequentialist grounds – women should have equal rights even if utility is reduced (eg even if there is a real possibility of a terrorist attack). It is not the case that there should be presumed consent even if utility is reduced.
“People may not trust their politicians in this country, and may have serious legitimate complaints about the health service, but there is hardly a legitimate analogy with the Brazilian state.”
Isn’t it just a matter of degree – people trust the state less (for good reason) in Brazil > more fear? It’s the same basic problem.
Sagar said,
December 3, 2008 at 9:21 am
“if opt-out would result in worse consequences than opt-in – if it can be proved that some people will distrust doctors and be scared of being admitted into hospital because of uncounterable Daily Mail scaremongering and that this negative outcome is not outweighed by any benefits of opt-out (eg more transplants) – then that is a good reason for not allowing it.”
Essentially that is correct. However, let’ focus on key words like “if it can be proved”, and “uncounterable Daily Mail scaremongering”.
Personally I would see moving to opt-out as involving active efforts to counter Daily Mail scaremongering – and I don’t believe that a priori such a thing is impossible. But my general response here again is “yes you are right, so long as you get me the empirical evidence. Failing that, I still favour opt-out”.
“It is not the case that there should be presumed consent even if utility is reduced.”
I think I agree with this, though there is a possible argument not based on consequentialist grounds: that it is good to have a society in which people know that their apathy leads to positive outcomes such as more people being saved, rather than dying. That society is in itself a better place” (But i’m not sure that argument can be pulled off successfully). In any case, I’m just going to stick to my guns and say “in this case (though certainly not all cases) consequences are what matter (though ‘utility’ may not be the right term to use) and I believe, in lieu of further evidence, that the world in which we move to opt-out will be one of better consequences than one in which we don’t”.
So it’s still about empirical evidence.