Terror threat restricts civil liberties

by Laura Brooks

The constant threat of terrorism in our lives is slowly resulting in more than just physical casualties - we are slowly descending into a scene from George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four as we lose liberties that we used to take for granted with every day that passes.

This week, around 2,000 photographers staged a protest in Trafalgar Square as part of a campaign against the use of Section 44, an anti-terror law that is being used to stop and search amateur and professional photgraphers, amongst other innocent people.

Last week, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that the entirety of Section 44 was illegal as it was indiscriminate rather than properly targeted at the terror threat.

The UK government is appealing this decision, and the law is still enforceable in the meantime.

Yesterday, in response to the photographer's protest, the Home Office issued a statement claiming that: "Stop and Search under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 is an important tool in a package of measures in the ongoing fight against terrorism."

It feels as though our rights are being taken away in honour of a threat that is diminutive, to say the least.

The ECHR ruled that Section 44 was illegal, yet thanks to a legal loophole, the government are allowed to enforce it until the appeal is over.

Why? Surely if it has been deemed illegal, that should be enough for the government?

By all means appeal it, but why are the police allowed these powers in the meantime?

If the government succeeds in taking our little freedoms away, when will we get them back?

Once the war on terror is over?

At the government's discretion?

Maybe never.

We have rights, and we should fight for them.