Taking Liberties

Should the unborn have the vote? (Flight of fancy from Stansted)

In 1836, the Working Men’s Association met in Covent Garden, London. This small group of skilled artisans had first gathered to campaign for the exemption of newspapers from taxation. In May, the tax was reduced, and they turned their attentions to other matters.

There were many, from Poor Law reform to the amelioration of child labour, but the group realised that the main lever controlling the engine of state was the vote, to which they were denied as they failed the relevant property qualification.

In the minutes on display in the current exhibition, they resolved to campaign for universal male suffrage. This led directly to the People’s Charter (1838) and the mass Chartist Movement.

The vote is a powerful thing. In the 1830s, slavery had finally been abolished in the British Empire, in part because the anti-slavery movement gave its support to the relevant MPs and refused to vote for pro-slavery politicians.

This, albeit slowly, gave a political voice to those that did not have one, except in actions of direct rebellion. It points, however, to one of the problems with the vote: those who are not franchised, whether future generations or those overseas, particularly in the developing world.

This, I imagine, will be among the arguments of the young Plane Stupid protestors, who caused some disruption and inconvenience at Stansted Airport this morning. By making their way close to the runway, they managed briefly to topple the economic crisis and the current squabble about parliamentary privilege from the top of the news.

Given that the environment is near to tipping point, and the main damage will be to the next generation or the world’s poor (who tend to live in exposed, low-lying cities) there may be many who wonder about the speed of the developed world’s political systems and their ability to respond to single issues, however pressing.

Deoxyribonucleic acid: the only language these people understand

England and Wales (but not Scotland) can boast one of the largest DNA databases in the world, in terms of percentage of the population.

This may be, like consumer credit or binge drinking, one of those areas in which we lead Europe or the world and are more a source of national shame than pride. But, after last week’s ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, it may be a record that we have to give up, as the retention of fingerprints and DNA data of unconvicted suspects (in other words, innocent people) is unlawful. Except for suspects for certain serious crimes, such as rape, when data may be kept for three years and for another two years with judicial consent, such retention conflicts with the right to respect for private life.

I can certainly see how it would be handy to have a vast database of potential wrong 'uns, and in my grumpy mood today, I could even go as far as seeing how sticking everyone’s DNA on a central register might be useful for Morse, Lewis and co. Thankfully, given what looks to be the lack of evidence for how useful any of this amassed data actually is, saner and vastly more expert heads have prevailed in Strasbourg.

I’m reminded of Douglas Adam’s riff on the video recorder, which is a marvellous invention not because it records programmes, but because it watches them for you, saving you the trouble. It’s good to know that the ECHR is there as a backstop, providing a check on some of our more Orwellian innovations, being a bit of a watchdog for us.