As far as the state is concerned the politics of fear is the most effective way of gathering support for the state apparatus. People’s fears, manufactured by state propaganda, lead them to accept all manner of draconian measures that they are told will protect them from the foreign enemy. Terrorism, the faceless, invisible threat, is the perfect candidate for the state to further its control over its citizens. In the eyes of most of its people the state is seen as protecting them from that faceless, invisible threat while tightening its control over them. Because the Orwellian state, the desired outcome of all modern states, will only be accepted through a fear from which the state is believed to be protecting us, it is therefore not foolish to expect that the state will create and foster such fears.
Since the 9/11 affair we have seen the state in this and most other countries pass more and more control legislation that they could never have attempted had there not been a climate of fear, a fear fanned by their propaganda. In this country we now have more CCTV cameras per head of the population than any other country in the world, mass surveillance of the ordinary people on a scale never before envisaged and it is readily accepted because of this climate of fear. Further to all this, UK Ministers have suggested a plan costing up to £12bn on a system that would track, tag and store internet history, e-mail records and telephone calls of every person in Britain, The proposal, would entail installing hundreds of hidden devices to tap into communications on the internet and via mobile phone providers. A national database would be created to store the information. A first installment of £1bn has already been allocated to the Government’s central intelligence agency GCHQ. Dominic Grieve, the shadow home secretary, said: “Any suggestion of the Government using existing powers to intercept communications data without public discussion is going to sound extremely sinister.” There have also been fears voiced concerning security issues about maintaining such a large database.
MI5 currently conducts limited e-mail and website surveillance, but still requires permission from the Home Secretary on a case-by-case basis to carry out the checks. If the new proposals are implemented, the intercepts would be comprehensive and automatic. The Home Office said no formal decision had been taken and said it “did not recognise” the £12bn price tag being put on the system. However sources said officials had made clear that ministers had agreed “in principle” to the program.
Examples of e-mails that will immediately be flagged to MI6 putting your house under 24 hour surveillance with the possibility of you being shot 5 times in the head at close range whilst running for your train – “yeh, the party was a real blast” “Met Gloria, she is dynamite” “The visit went down a bomb.”
With this control and mass surveillance we see our right to peaceful protest being stifled, dissent being labeled suspect or even terrorist in nature. We now have to ask ourselves, is this fear justified, what is the REAL evidence, are we prepared to see our lives being tied in ever tightening controls, our every movement monitored and our avenues of protest being closed down? Is this acceptable in a so called democracy? It is now more than ever time to challenge the state before there is no right to peaceful protest, no voice of the people to rein in the obtrusive power of the state. Later could be too late.