by David Birchall

Created on: June 19, 2008

The two great dystopian novels of our time- 1984 and Brave New World- tell of societies in which the people are not free. In 1984 that freedom is curtailed repressively, by the brutal force of an all-powerful state. Brave New World on the other hand, takes the opposite view; a world almost without rules, but where consumerism is so rampant as to be all that is needed to ensure obedience.

Until 9/11 it seemed BNW had it right. We were gradually slipping into a state of passive acceptance, where greed was the only emotion felt strongly enough to matter. In such a state free speech, association et al were taken for granted, and never used to court true controversy.

Now, and suddenly, there is an apparent need to curtail our liberty. In the UK the commons have passed 42 day detention without charge. We have been complicit in extraordinary rendition. We have almost certainly broken international law by accepting confessions obtained through torture. Less dramatically, councils have the power to monitor people suspected of crimes such as fly tipping, and we are the most surveyed society in the world.

The prevention of terror is clearly important. Had 9/11 been repeated three or four times, then torture of Islamic militants might seem appropriate. However, in the UK one attack killing fifty, and almost certainly a direct result of our heavy-handed tactics towards a group now seen as the 'other', does not provide sufficient cause to destroy our liberty. As is often mentioned, such actions are just what Al-Qaeda pray on.

Fear and security have always been the driving force behind humanity. In 1984 the people lived in permanent fear of the perpetual war that raged, and gladly gave up their freedom. Right wing, reactionary news sources such as the Daily Mail in the UK and Fox in the US are only to happy to propagate myths that we are under constant attack: it's us or them. Thus we tolerate it because we are convinced, ignoring both the lack of actual attacks and the reason why they might attack (that is, persecution, Guantanamo, Belmarsh), that without harsh measures they will kill more and more.

But, given the lack of evidence just mentioned, our compliance relies on more than fear. It relies on apathy and divisive journalism. Here in the UK, the 42 day detention debate coincided with the marriage of a famous footballer, and thus was relegated to second place (at best) in the tabloids. Civil liberties have, perhaps, been taken for granted for too long. Now their erosion is meet with a weak shrug.

When tabloids speak of terror it is absolute terms. As long as it is only Muslims that are likely to arrested, the general population are happy to ignore abuse, and statements such as "Islam is a religion of terror" are repeated until many believe them to be true. This is Bush and Blair's legacy to the world. Al-Qaeda was not the biggest terrorist group in the world pre-9/11. Few had heard of Bin-Laden. Now there really British youths growing up to despise their country because it seems their country despises their religion.

And finally, the war on terror (war on an abstract noun), really could become Orwell's perpetual war. It is clearly self-perpetuating. Every innocent in Guantanamo will inspire more and more suicide bombers. Every belligerent statement towards Iran will only distance 'us' and 'them' even further.

Hopefully the next president will distance himself from the war on terror. Hopefully the next British PM will not follow so meekly, and this will all be a nasty blip in human progress. If not, then there really is no reason that the war will ever stop, and we will never get our liberties back.

Learn more about this author, David Birchall.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.