The DNA Database fudge continues
5:15 am - November 12th 2009
Tweet | Share on Tumblr |
One of the motifs of the past few months has been that politicians of all colours “just don’t get it”. Ironically, when it comes to the continuing debacle over the DNA database, you rather imagine that they did get it and now they’re utterly bewildered at how things have turned out.
Here, after all, is what ought to be a standard tabloid outrage scandal: because of the “unaccountable” European Court of Human Rights, the government is having to change its policy on keeping all the DNA profiles of those arrested but not charged indefinitely, potentially raising the spectre of the guilty getting away with their crimes. The Sun, that flag-bearer of social authoritarianism, did originally raise its voice, but has since barely made a peep about the S and Marper case and its implications.
For a government that has so often treated with contempt the concerns of civil libertarians, with the full connivance of the vast majority of the tabloid press, the Daily Mail only recently deciding that it’s time to join the other side, it must be wondering where all those who believe if they’ve got nothing to hide they’ve got nothing to fear have disappeared to.
As it happens, the majority are still probably on the side of mass DNA retention, just as they were on the side of extending the detention limit for terrorist suspects, even if the numbers fell away once the full implications of 42 or 90 days were properly explained.
It is therefore encouraging, that just this once, it’s the other side making all the noise.
On the one hand, you do have to recognise that if the government were to implement the the S and Marper ruling to the letter and destroy the DNA profiles of those not charged and found not guilty, on the very first occasion that someone then went onto commit a far graver offence and as a result was not brought to justice immediately, you can bet that those who are currently quiet would be screaming blue murder.
A more confident, and indeed, more liberal government, would however make the argument that we cannot create a completely secure society without making the kind of sacrifices that would reduce the amount of freedom which each and every one of us currently enjoys. As it is however, we instead have a government that is terrified both of the power of the press in one of its “fits of morality” and which knows that such woolly-thinking is hardly a vote-winner.
Even so, keeping an innocent person’s profile for 6 years is completely unjustifiable, and quite clearly breaches the S and Marper ruling. The main hope from ministers has to be that by the time any challenge to it winds its way through the courts again, they’ll ever not be in the same job, or they won’t even be in government. The Conservatives are promising to emulate the more enlightened Scottish system, but again, whether it will be one of their first priorities is unclear.
The overall result though is classically New Labour. They would like to go further, without being able to, while also privately doubtless wishing they could do the exact opposite. Such are the constrains by which we have been governed, and likely will continue to be under Cameron’s “new” Tories.
Tweet | Share on Tumblr |
'Septicisle' is a regular contributor to Liberal Conspiracy. He mostly blogs, poorly, over at Septicisle.info on politics and general media mendacity.
· Other posts by Septicisle
Story Filed Under: Blog ,Civil liberties ,Media ,Our democracy ,Westminster
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Reader comments
Pedantically, keeping innocent people’s DNA for 6 years *is* justifiable – in fact, you just did justify it. If keeping innocent’s people’s DNA for 6 years does prevent someone committing a violent crime or two (which it could. Case not proven, but it could), then your justification is right there.
It just isn’t a very good justification when set against the arguments against it. Let’s try a little less hyperbole and keep with the rational arguments instead.
“Justifiable” is one of those Princess Bride words amongst politicians. I do not think it means what they think it means.
To be fair to the Daily Mail (shudder) it has frequently expressed concerns about the DNA database and other database and surveillance schemes.
A more confident, and indeed, more liberal government, would however make the argument that we cannot create a completely secure society without making the kind of sacrifices that would reduce the amount of freedom which each and every one of us currently enjoys. As it is however, we instead have a government that is terrified both of the power of the press in one of its “fits of morality” and which knows that such woolly-thinking is hardly a vote-winner.
Well said.
‘Pedantically, keeping innocent people’s DNA for 6 years *is* justifiable – in fact, you just did justify it. If keeping innocent’s people’s DNA for 6 years does prevent someone committing a violent crime or two (which it could. Case not proven, but it could), then your justification is right there.’
Holding an innocent persons DNA profile for 6 years is no more ‘justifyable’ than holding a random section of the public’s DNA profile for 6 years for exactly the same reason.
Reactions: Twitter, blogs
-
Liberal Conspiracy
:: The DNA Database fudge continues http://bit.ly/7SYEX
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.