Rachel North: A life lived in total security is no life at all
Friday, 11 July 2008
The by-election is over; the crowd of candidates have hung up their ties and their cow suits and their hot-pants, the good constituents of Haltemprice and Howden have cast their votes. Turnout was hampered by 5,000 students being home for the holidays, and the lure of the Great Yorkshire Show, attended by the Queen, yet still they stepped out to exercise the most basic democratic right of all.
As I waved goodbye to a straight-backed and smiling David Davis on Wednesday at Brough train station this week, having travelled up to speak at his debate with Shami Chakrabarti and rebel Labour MP Bob Marshall-Andrews QC, I wished him luck. He has done a brave thing, a big beast of a politician forcibly inserting himself into the Westminster machine until the sparks fly.
Now it is time to see if the debate he has ignited will continue to burn or be doused by the cold water of cynicism and tribal party politics as this grey wet summer – so far mercifully terrorism free – continues .
For over three weeks, the argument about liberty and security has crackled in the comment pages, the blogosphere and the airwaves. It has continued in the pubs and cafés, the offices and parks of Britain in a most heartening way. The initial jeers and smears of the Westminster village saying that it was but a madcap vanity stunt were quickly swamped by a tidal wave of opinion from the public, who made their voices heard by phoning and emailing and commenting in droves.
Now the polls have begun to swing – one has 60 per cent of the public now against Government plans to detain terror suspects for six weeks. The debate in the Lords has exploded, with the ex-Director General of M15 using her maiden speech to pour withering scorn on 42 days. The strikingly passionate public response has shown that when you ask people to consider serious issues, you get a serious and considered response. Liberty, debate and democracy are alive and well and have not been flattened by stifling populism. Thank God.
One of the most interesting things has been the shifting in traditional party-political tectonics. Claims that the left/right divide is dead and positive liberty/negative liberty are the new fault lines have some merit, though it is possible to detect anxiety in some op-ed pieces which betray a rattled attempt to return to the old left/right tribalism. A big tent can be a disconcerting place to find oneself, and the range of voices heard has thrown up some surprising results.
Some of what has come up has been downright depressing. The admired campaigner for rape justice Jill Saward, whose story mirrors my own – like me she is the daughter of a vicar and the survivor of a horribly violent stranger-rape – stood as an independent candidate.
Her desire for a universal DNA database where we are all logged – potential criminals all – is truly frightening, though I can understand it. After I was attacked, I wanted it too, for a while. Until I discovered that most people are raped by someone they know. Until I remembered that the issue in rape trials is not identification, but consent. Until I realised that a life of total security, with a faceless Someone to watch over me at all times is a suffocating nightmare and no life at all.
I learned, once I had fought through the worst of the nights of crippling flashbacks and fear, that life and liberty are to be cherished all the more for having nearly been lost, and the price of my liberty is an acceptance that I walk freely in the world, at my own risk, with responsibility for my fate in my own hands and that is a price worth paying gladly. For to treat people as permanent potential victims or suspects, to encourage them to make a fetish of their potential victimhood, is to dishonour their right to be fully human.
New technology and new fears are used to conjure old nightmares – and offer a shiny dream of how to protect ourselves against the worst. It is natural when you are frightened to wish to be protected. It is easy to slip into the trap of feeling that damn it; you are a good sort of person and ought to be safe from those who are not like you.
But history has taught us how dangerous it is to allow our base fears to name our enemies and to dictate our actions. If human rights mean anything at all, they mean the right to be fully human, with all our weaknesses, and must be applied to all. Our liberty is our best security; our impassioned debating of it is a measure of our strength and resilience.
Rachel North is the author of 'Out of the Tunnel', a memoir of being raped and caught up in the 7/7 bombings, and a campaigner for civil liberties

Great column Rachel.
Posted by Janine Mitchell | 15.07.08, 23:15 GMT
Hear, hear, Rachel. I agree with every single word.
Posted by Julia Williams | 13.07.08, 12:08 GMT
Good article, Rachel, as ever.
Posted by Technomist | 12.07.08, 23:49 GMT
''Is it not populist politics to quit your position in the Shadow Cabinet and tell the voters how we stand to be living in a totalitarian state if people vote for 42 days? Is that not playing on the fears of voters who know little about what the legislation actually means? ''
No, of course it isn't. Popular isn't the same as populist. He threw the debate open to the voters, caused a wide range of voices to be heard, and then they voted. The top 2 candidates were anti 42 days. the debate was aired. Good. Playing on the fears of voters? How is bringing the debate to them and encouraging them to vote and discuss it not a good thing? Better that than the Govt whipping and bribing it through in a pathetic show of strength, complete with tame emotional-blackmailing headlines in the Downing St Echo.
What reasonable argument is there for 42 days when Dame Eliza (who saw all the security analysis unedited all the time) nukes it in her maiden speech as not needed and not practical?
Posted by Lara | 12.07.08, 14:13 GMT
Could 'western canadian' tell us exactly how 'we Brits' lost our freedom? Or is he engaging in the characteristic abuse slinging of a chippy provincial?
Posted by Dectora | 12.07.08, 11:31 GMT
You are right, Rachel, but it's too late. You Brits lost your freedom years ago. But continue with the delusions if they make you feel good.
Posted by western canadian | 12.07.08, 00:11 GMT
"Liberty, debate and democracy are alive and well and have not been flattened by stifling populism. Thank God."
Is it not populist politics to quit your position in the Shadow Cabinet and tell the voters how we stand to be living in a totalitarian state if people vote for 42 days? Is that not playing on the fears of voters who know little about what the legislation actually means?
I am not in favour of 42 days, but can see that there is a reasonable argument in favour of it, and do not think it is just an example of a government getting too bossy for its boots.
Posted by Rob | 11.07.08, 19:56 GMT
Cracking article. You are quite right Rachael, and how refreshing to see someone who has been a victim of two terrible violent crimes not to descend into vengeance and emotionally-blackmailing victimhood. If you can stay sane despite everything that has happened, why can't politicians?
Posted by Peter | 11.07.08, 17:32 GMT
Great article Rachel, I fully agree. We shouldn't let a media-driven, inflated sense of fear erode our civil liberties. I for one would rather die tomorrow in a free country than live 50 years under constant surveillance. ID cards? DNA database? 42 days without charge? No thank you! A life wrapped in cotton wool is no life at all!
Posted by Rich | 11.07.08, 10:30 GMT
Rachel: I fully support the sentence: If human rights mean anything at all, they mean the right to be fully human, with all our weaknesses, and must be applied to all. Our liberty is our best security; our impassioned debating of it is a measure of our strength and resilience.
I am particularly referring to women in many parts of the world. they are 'protected' by their fathers so long that when they do get free, are lost in this jungle of opportunities and hostilities. Then they keep on asking their husbands: What shall I do . We must initiate laws which make it impossible for the parents to dictate their women. Let them decide what they want to be and be free to walk out of the house and see anybody they want to and do whatever they want.
Posted by SharifL | 11.07.08, 08:53 GMT