Innocent photographer or terrorist?
Revised: April 17, 2008Benjamin Franklin was an incredible man but for all his many achievements and remembered quotes passed down through the centuries, none more than the following applies greater to our societies current predicament than the following:
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin.
It appears that we are hearing it more and more within the media that extra security will enable us to live safer lives against the “terrorist threat”, but does giving up our natural given liberties provide us with any tangible safety advantages? If you take into consideration for one moment that the more of your freedoms you give up for the sake of safety the less safe you become because you then become stuck in a situation where upon you have no freedom allowing you to make yourself safe. A good however controversial example of this is weapon legislation which has inherently led to less armed good Samaritans and more armed criminals in essence meaning that those who need to protect themselves have less means to do so while at the same time not effectively restricting the underworld gun culture, did giving up the right to own and carry a weapon lead to unified safety from gun crime? Temporarily maybe, but over the past couple of years we have seen more and more high profile gun violence within the British media and its happening on our streets1. Hence we have become a culture dominated by a faux-fear leading to paranoia against the most petty of things. Suddenly an old man waiting outside the school gates becomes a paedophile rather than some child’s grandfather, a foreign student on the tube taking architectural photos becomes a terrorist scout and anyone daring to cook food hot enough to release vapours2 gets their door kicked down by anti-terrorist police in masks welding guns in their face.
Events like these are not happening infrequently either and with each year that passes the public have what ever private liberty left shaved away within law after law proclaiming to provide them with safety. It has come to the point where if you are a photographer, amateur or professional, and you find something interesting enough within public domain to capture you face the risk of police taking you to the side, carrying out a stop and search under new anti-terror legislation and then forcing you to erase the photos or remove and destroy film as documented happening to Phil Smith within a BBC3 article. It is understandable that anything inherently private such as military or government establishments, peoples private homes (without permission) and people whom wish not to be captured should be enforced against, but mine and yours snaps while wondering through a city streets should not. The day that you can be arrested for owning a camera isn’t coming, it sneaked up behind your back while the government distracted you with offers of “enhanced security”.
Notes:
- This may appear to be slightly elaborated, and it is, however a good example of the media’s representation of gun violence.
- There is a bbc new article on this that I have unfortunately been unable to find, where people in a London kitchen where cooking food hot enough to release choking vapours.
- View it here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7351252.stm
Tagged: culture, law, media, photographer, Photography, police, security, terrorism.
