London Bombing Can’t be Prevented

Four years later, we are faced again with evidence of the carnage that can be wrought when people are not concerned with their own survival.  Just as the September 11, 2001 attacks showed how vulnerable we are, the London bombings reminded us.

Whenever these attacks occur, we start to think about what we could do to prevent them. 

Forget about it. 

There’s only one way we can start to even try to prevent such things.  We could become the society of George Orwell’s 1984.  Big Brother might prevent those attacks. 

We are not going to do it.  We are not going to do it, because we are not prepared to give up the freedoms and convenience that we enjoy.

The subway systems work because they move millions of people very fast.  They also work because people see them as a cheaper alternative to owning their own vehicle (even though the TTC is subsidized by taxpayers). 

You can’t move millions of people quickly and cheaply when you have airport-style security and surveillance. 

If you want more evidence that we cannot prevent these attacks, look at Iraq.  In a country under military rule, where individual rights and privacy are nothing compared to what we have here, the suicide attacks occur almost daily, killing far more than the London bombings have.

After the September 11, 2001 attacks, I said in this space:  “It’s amazing what terrorism will do to people’s attitudes.”

For decades, we have fought against government measures that threaten our privacy or allow police to arrest and detain people without them even being charged.  Yet, after attacks like these, we are literally begging our government to take away our rights to privacy and presumption of innocence. 

People say, without really thinking about it: “Hey, if it makes this place safer, I’m all for it.”  No, you’re not.

How will you feel when it is you that gets arrested at an airport because the police thought your profile matched that of a certain suspect or they think you might be a terrorist?  When you hear the rubber glove snap, you won’t be praising the security measures:  you’ll be screaming for your lawyer, threatening a lawsuit for unlawful detention.

In the news last week was the story of a guy being held in Canada on a “security certificate”.  He has been held in prison for four years.  He has not been charged.  The “security certificate” process allows prosecutors to present their case in secret to a judge.  The accused and his lawyers are not allowed to attend.  The accused and his lawyers are not permitted to know the case being made against him. 

What the %$&*#!!

How is a lawyer supposed to argue against a case he doesn’t know?  You can’t challenge any of the evidence given, because you don’t know what it is!  It is no longer the adversarial court system that in a fundamental part of our democratic society.  Secret trials on security certificates are part of an autocratic state, not Canada!

Why aren’t we screaming out against this?