It’s not either/or, dammit!

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

So, the safety elephant says that we should all be prepared to give up a few measly rights in order to be secure. Could someone tell me, please, what is this obsession of his?

Speaking at the European Parliament, he said that the European Convention on Human Rights might need to be changed if judges in European courts did not recognise that the right to life was more important that concerns about privacy.

“If the judges don’t understand that message and don’t take decisions which reflect where the people of the continent want to be, then the conclusion will be that politicians…will be saying we have got to have a change in this regime,” Clarke told reporters.
[emphasis mine]

Excuse me? Where, exactly, is the ‘right to life’ curtailed by the right to privacy? Murder is still murder, regardless if the government is reading our emails or not. So perhaps Mr Clarke should shut the hell up and stop talking shite.

Oh, and

Critics argue that the proposed laws would not solve any existing problems. They point out that not having the powers proposed in the data retention bill did not seem to hamper the investigation into the Madrid bombings, nor did it stop the police in the UK from tracking down and arresting in short order the four suspects in the 21 July attacks.

Sssh! You’re spoiling the spin! Don’t let facts and reality get in the way of a good political manoeuver….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>