Category Archives: All posts

I went to last Radio 4’s live “Any Questions” on Friday at St Columba’s Church of Scotland, Pont St in Knightsbridge. The panellists were Ken Livingstone, Lord (“Gus”) MacDonald. Theresa May and Amanda Platell. 45 minutes before the 8pm programme, audience members writer down their questions, of which a few are chosen to be asked live. (the panellists do not see the questions before the live broadcast.) My question – “Does the panel agree that the coverage of potential terrorist threats on the BBC and in other media thus far has been overly alarmist and has as a result played into al-Qaeda’s hands by creating a climate of fear?” – was chosen, and you can see the transcript here and even listen to the programme (I was second question) by clicking on the listen again link here.

I didn’t feel any of the panellists answered the question. They all preferred to focus on the size of the threat and the need for the government to warn the public, rather than the question of whether the media coverage has been too alarmist, thus ultimately serving Al Qaeda’s needs by creating a fearful public.

I have had a lot of positive comments about my call for coverage of terrorist threats to be rationalised by creating terrorism forecasts after the news (see below’s entry for 12 November), although one person points out that it risks institutionalising terrorism. My response to that would be that we need to face up to the fact that the threat will be around for at least 10-20 years, and as such, it will almost by definition become institutionalised in our society. So marginalise it.

It’s a sad fact that “wars” on abstract nouns (like “terrorism” and “drugs”) are virtually unwinnable anyway.

More thoughts on freedom and the post 11 September world, so if you’re bored of it, stop reading now.

Isaiah Berlin, one of the great European liberal thinkers and philosophers of the 20th century was passionate about liberty, and fond of drawing a distinction between “freedom from…” (which he called negative liberty) and “freedom to…” (which he called postive liberty). His thought was notoriously eclectic and even sometimes contradictory, but he eventually came to believe that there was something fundamental about “Freedom from…”, whereas “freedom to…” was less of a necessity and more of a nice-to-have. His overall definition of liberty was summarised as “the right to freely shape one’s life… the only barrier is the need to protect others”.

Although Berlin’s thinking was philosophical and thus is hard to translate immediately into real situations, apply these two concepts of liberty in the context of the comments I posted on 11 November. Clearly we must have the “freedom from” terror and indiscriminate acts of criminal behaviour such as happened on New York, Bali and wherever the next attack will come. As such, pursuit of the criminals responsible under agreed international law is absolutely essential. But think about Bryan Appleyard’s comment – “Americans don’t want to be free to be anything, they want to be free to be Americans with all that that implies.” The issue with “freedom to…”s like this is that they easily trip over into impinging on the liberty of others. In the immediate post-9/11 aftermath, there seemed to be the beginings of a genuine reappraisal of how we all (as individuals) apply our “freedom to…”s, although this was quickly subsumed by the rhetoric of the “war on terrorism” and the “assault on Afghanistan”. The result was the beginnings of another set of new laws aimed at protecting the community at the expense of individual freedom. At some point, probably sooner rather than later, we will all need to think about these questions more deeply, particularly as the various anti-terrorism laws that have been passed in the US, the UK and elsewhere have started to call into question the idea of the “inalienable” rights (or “freedom to”s?) of the individual again.

Memepool has an interesting top story today about Tensegrity. I’m been fascinated by Tensegrity ever since I went to an exhibition of Buckminster Fulller’s work at London’s design museum. Tensegrity derives from the confluence of two words – Tension and Integrity – and can be used to create structures with integrity using tension. There’s a really cool toy that you can get hold of called a Tensegritoy. I’ve got one which I play around with when I’m at the cottage in Scotland. Cool. If you’re into toys, that is.