4 ms·
What a trite article. To claim that the British are complacent about state surveillance because we all perceive ourselves as "royal subjects" smacks of fire-sta
by Tzunamitom 13y ago
What a trite article. To claim that the British are complacent about state surveillance because we all perceive ourselves as "royal subjects" smacks of fire-starting by a Guardian columnist desperately trying to draw attention to his newspaper's position to gather more readers.
There are a number of factors why this is less of an issue in the UK than it is here in North America, including:
1. Brits fundamentally trust their government more - not politics, but the concept that a state government exists first and foremost for the good of the people is more prevalent in the UK.
2. The influence of special interest groups and corporate electioneering is much more muted in the UK.
3. As someone else mentioned, CCTV cameras in themselves are not bad - most are privately operated and NOT linked to a central government data store.
4. As someone mentions in the article comments, the UK has been a target of terrorism for much longer than the US.
5. Increased education levels in the British armed forces, garner more confidence in the military to do the morally correct thing given a tough decision.
6. Britain is institutionally far more liberal than the US with less interference in policy from religious extremists and a history of judges making activist decisions in order to preserve civil liberties where legislation threatens to undermine established convention tantamount to constitution (given the choice I'd rather have a country that is self-restraining and no constitution than a constitution that restrains, but a government that looks for ways to usurp it).
This is not to say that there is not a worry about civil liberties in the UK - you only have to look at the furore about the proposed introduction ID cards a couple of years back to see that the Brits care a lot about civil liberties, they just see the threats in different terms.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- objclxt 13y agoI agree with most of your points, except for these two: > Britain [has] less interference in policy from religious extremists [than the US] This seems a slightly rose-tinted view of British history. I would argue Britain actually has more interference in policy from religious extremists than the US. What would you call the Lords Spiritual (the 26 seats in the House of Lords reserved for Anglican Bishops) if not religious interference in policy? Or how about Section 28, which was proposed and pushed through primarily by religious groups? US government policy is frequently influenced by religion, but the separation of Church and State tempers this, and the Supreme Court has frequently overturned legislation that has been drawn up with religious influence (and indeed, directly overturned legislation that actively promotes religion in state institutions). In the UK the church is the state. You only have to look at the recent issues surrounding gay marriage (versus civil partnerships) in the UK to see there is religious interference in governmental policy. > a history of judges making activist decisions in order to preserve civil liberties where legislation threatens to undermine established convention I would argue the US has an equally strong history of this, and the current Supreme Court system in the UK owes a lot to the US. Indeed, I think the etymology of the phrase 'activist judge' stems from the US, not the UK.
- desas 13y agoI'm not arguing for or against the Lords Spiritual, but the Church of England is probably the most liberal wishy-washy organised religion there is.
- jdmitch 13y agoI don't think any Lords Spiritual (whom one would be hard-pressed to qualify as extremists in any case), or other Lords for that matter, could be construed as having significant influence on Parliament.
- lmm 13y agoWe don't have the massive (and perfectly legal!) campaign contributions from religious groups that the US does. While less direct than the lords spiritual, I think those are much more influential on the whole. And while the Church of England and Lords Spiritual may be many things, extremist they certainly are not.
- richardjordan 13y agoIn much of the US atheists are forbidden from holding many electe offices. This is not true in the UK. Fretting over the Lords Spiritual and their lately ceremonial role is to misunderstand the nature of political power and the lack thereof vested in the House of Lords, and in particular the non-party-political members.
- reginaldjcooper 13y agoNowhere in the US are atheists explicitly forbidden from holding a government position as that would be a flagrant and obvious violation of the First Amendment. In many places they certainly won't be voted for if they admit their religious position in public.
- vinceguidry 13y ago> In much of the US atheists are forbidden from holding many electe offices. This is ridiculous. I wouldn't be surprised if there were laws on the books dating back to the 1800s as Wikipedia states, but no way are they being enforced, the first time they try would spell the end of any such law. Now, atheists may well be unelectable for many offices, but that's neither here nor there.