This is what happens when people stop standing up for their rights

This crap is going on all over the planet. Under the broad brush of "anti terrorism," people are having their

rights snatched from right under their noses without a fight in many cases. I think it really is time to start

hitting back, by asserting our rights as individuals, human beings, taxpayers, citizens and voters.<p>

 

Anyway, the nastiness in question this time is a soon to be enacted law in Britain, as explained <a

href="http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=836675">British Labor Party to enact law imprisoning photographers for up to ten years for snapping shots that happen to have a member of the Old Bill in 'em.</a><p>

 

I mean how far are we going to let the police state-ification of Western Christendom go? (speaking as an heir to

our western traditions of freedom, human rights and such).

<p>So, there's talking the talk and then there's walking the walk...So organize a mass gathering of every photographer in every city on the ould sod and they should march right down en masse to an agreed upon police station in each city and start taking pictures of every cop they see. Either they'll laugh it off, or they'll jail thousands and solve their "terrorist" problem. Anything less than that is empty invective. "V" was just a movie right?</p>

<p>Do the British penitentiaries are big enough to host everybody that owns a camera, whether a big pro DSRL or a crap one integrated in a cell phone? And thousand of tourists shooting a picture of Trafalgar square or another landmark in London are a thousand tourists taking pictures for their amusement or a thousand terrorists taking pictures 'likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism' ???<br>

It was far, but much far easier, to issue a ban for cameras and video cameras in the UK.</p>

Not a bad idea. I think though, that "terrorism" is being used in so many ways to restrict people. It's a fundamental problem. Either we live in a free society, or we live in a police state. I live in Japan, and here in Japan, which was an out and out police state, until the end of World War II, with real thought police, known as the Kempei Tai, they could imprison you for thought crimes, under the Peace Preservation Law.<p>

 

The people that rebuilt Japan, the Allied Occupiers, were New Deal types and firmly established New Deal principles in Japan, freedom of speech, religion, etc. The Japanese being very serious about what they do are very serious about these outdated principles, and they still hold over here, although they are getting eroded, slowly by reactionary forces (under the guise of "anti terror").

That's not the point. Of course they don't have to arrest anyone with a camera. The point is that the law allows them to apply it selectively, to silence legitimate coverage of out of control members of the authoritarian 1984 class.

<p>Darius. You are right. They don't have to. But they can do. And you, with your camera, are just in the middle. I wouldn't feel comfortable in taking pictures of landmarks in the UK knowing that I can end in jail if somebody decides that this law applies to me.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I wouldn't feel comfortable in taking pictures of landmarks in the UK knowing that I can end in jail if somebody decides that this law applies to me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A police officer thinking this law applies to you is one thing. Getting a judge to agree with that is a different matter entirely.</p>

<p>Steve, I agree. The problem for me is the hassle in between. It this law passes and I happen to come to UK for wathever reason, my camera will stay home. I cannot afford to loose business time or spoil a vacation because I pressed the shutter button once in the wrong place. Whenever the application of a rule is related to the common sense of the people enforcing it, you can always find somebody that does not know what common sense is. Eventually you will find sobebody else in his chain of command (i.e. the judge) but you have to bear all the hassles in between.<br>

I have been to Tunisia and that is a country where shooting government installations is strictly forbidden. Most of them have "no camera" signs on the walls. That's a rule far easier to respect than a general provision that could apply to anything (terrorist can target virtually anything), from a military installation to a train station.</p>

<p>That is exactly the problem, selective enforcement. That is your trial defense at least in the USA.<br>

They need to put up signs so you know what is legal and what is not.</p>

<p>After that they will need to ban paper an pencils.</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>I wouldn't feel comfortable in taking pictures of landmarks in the UK knowing that I can end in jail if somebody decides that this law applies to me.<br>

A police officer thinking this law applies to you is one thing. Getting a judge to agree with that is a different matter entirely.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Its very comforting to know that one will merely be arrested, taken away handcuffed, processed at a police station, pay good money for legal help, have to appear in court to answer terrorism charges ect.</p>

 

<p>we tend to associate labour as a socialist movement. so the expected policies are to be conscious of public opinon, free of speech and general good of all folks. new labour was elected on a different platform. those of us who voted for mr blair in that luke warm may in 1997 had mostly known the tories. so many of is where thatcher's children, seduced by greed, immorality and segregation. we thought new labour was going to be a new dawn. this was not to be the case. events had somewhat forced the government at times to justify the erosion of public liberties in the name of securing the nation.<br>

the purpose of any law is to control a section of society. however, there is no need to assume that the average bobby on the beat is a fascist plod. they have their homes to go to and children to feed. of course, there had been incidents where photographers and private individuals have been harassed, however, i am not sure how much this law is going to be enfirced to imprison photographers. some of the antiterror laws have been used to detain kids in merseyside, elderly folks in party conferences and such innace circumstances. i don't wish to state that all members of the armed forced are saints. however, the police by nature are not armed in this country. i have been shooting with my bessa r and 1936 leitz elmar 9cm outside of the parliament building a few months after the 2005 london underground attacks. that combination and my skin colour made me stick out like a sore thumb! i was also carrying a black back pack. while taking a picture of downing street, i got some looks, they were never malicious. i even asked a very attactive female office to take a picture of me. she politely obliged, pointing out how suggestive the lens looked in the little camera and how she could not focus!<br>

i do think that we should perhaps write to our members of parliament and write to as many newspapers as possible to protest against this new law, however, this should not be panic stations just as yet. smiling a little more, wearing a nice aftershave, speaking politely when questioned by a member of the law enforcement always has a better chance of neutralising any situation. an abrasive personality would always get you into trouble!</p>

<p>There was a proposal to require a permit for street photography in New York City a year or so ago, a petition drive was organized, and Mayor Bloomberg was forced to rescind his proposal. I suggest similar action is in order. I will sign any petition on this matter that you put together and will spread it around to hundreds of photographers who will do the same. You, however, must take the first step.</p>

<p>John</p>

<p>>>> This crap is going on all over the planet. ... I mean how far are we going to let the police state-ification of Western Christendom go?</p>

<p>Right...</p>

<p>This is all so silly. Police state indeed. Go talk to some Holocaust survivors and then you might have a better and much more personal understanding of that term.</p>

<p>For those that actually go out and regularly do SP, little has changed. Funny how some thinking that the proposed UK law on snapping the police has a huge impact on street photography. Please post some of your serious police snaps; I'd like to understand how your street photography will be curtailed.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Steve, I agree. The problem for me is the hassle in between. It this law passes and I happen to come to UK for wathever reason, my camera will stay home.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Bring the camera with you and don't worry about it.</p>

<p>Think about how many millions of people, both resident and visitor, walk around the UK taking pictures and compare that to even the most exagerated number of people allegedly harassed and/or detained by police. It will be a miniscule percentage.</p>

<p>I spent a good few hours walking around London's South Bank with a Minolta film camera in plain view and nobody was interested or even gave it a second look. There were also quite a few new DSLRs on show and countless people using P&S digitals and their camera-phones.</p>

<p>No point being paranoid about something that is about as likely as winning the lottery jackpot.</p>

<p>I don't live in the UK, but I photograph cops all the time in the USA. It is one of many subjects that triggers a photographic response. And I also been illegally arrested for it right here in the old USA. Cops make very interesting subjects, especially when juxtaposed with other subjects.</p>

This law would make an interesting one-two punch with a law being proposed here in Washington state (USA). That proposed law would require DNA samples be taken from everyone arrested, regardless of actual charges being filed or conviction.

<blockquote>

<p>Police state indeed. Go talk to some Holocaust survivors and then you might have a better and much more personal understanding of that term.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>So Brad, you're saying you now have to be in a death camp to claim you are victim of police abuse? The photographers at the RNC last year should be subject to arrest and face ten years in prison? Or the people who videotaped the Bart shooting? The guy who got arrested at the Amtrak station?</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>No point being paranoid about something that is about as likely as winning the lottery jackpot.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Tell that to the people who see terrorists everywhere.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Tell that to the people who see terrorists everywhere.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Please explain.</p>

<p>>>> So Brad, you're saying you now have to be in a death camp to claim you are victim of police abuse?</p>

<p>Police abuse? I don't understand your question. Was there a claim of police abuse by the OP (<i>I mean how far are we going to let the police state-ification of Western Christendom go?</i>)?</p>

<p>In any event and FWIW, there's a HUGE difference between being a victim of police abuse and living in a police state - neither of which were substantiated or even addressed by the OP.</p>

<p>I think I can explain Damon point with my experience. Back in 1995 I was in Duesseldorf. I was walking in a park and I saw a black girl playing with a white boy. Both of them were about 3 years old. I asked the parents in my very basic German if I could take a picture of the two playing together (it's not a scene that happens very frequently). I got permission, took the picture, went home, developed the film, made two Cibachrome enlargements of the best shot and sent to both parents. I think that today (2009) if you are a foreigner barely speaking German, walking in a park with a SRL at the neck and you do the same in the same situation, people will think differently about you and your intentions and most likely you won't get the same answer.</p>

<p>>>> The photographers at the RNC last year should be subject to arrest and face ten years in prison? Or the people who videotaped the Bart shooting? The guy who got arrested at the Amtrak station?</p>

<p>OK, based on those occurrences, you really believe we are living in a <i>police state</i>?</p>

<p>I was hassled by mall cops. Interviewed by the police. Then interviewed by the FBI and INS at my home. Guess who won't be taking pics at the mall anymore.<br>

I feel I was originally targeted because of the way I look. There were literally thousands of people there with cameras, literally. If they applied the law and paranoia equally to everyone then it wouldn't bother me so much.<br>

I'm all for security and safety, I just believe that the laws should be applied to everyone. Racial profiling tends to bring on more false positives than actual leads in my opinion.</p>

<p>Could be, Al. I know what you mean. I had a former colleague who was Italian like me, but from his face, he looked like he came from Middle East. After 2001, each time we travelled together to some countries, he always had a high chance to be stopped at the passport control and have his luggage opened and inspected, while we were given the usual level of controls reserved to all Europeans. He had no interest in cameras, but I guess he could not take pictures in some places without being noticed by somebody and reported to the vigilance.</p>

<p>I would've thought one might have more problems with photography<br>

in smaller communities where<br>

the police forces were less aware of being right or correct.<br>

Stupidity associated with the police is now widespread.<br>

Post 9/11 the police now figure they have an obvious reason<br>

for their existence iand causing problems<br>

to anybody who is acting outside of what might be called "normal."<br>

Those carrying a camera, of swarthy appearance or those in<br>

the wrong place at the wrong time are all now suspect<br>

If I was to venture to the United States and took photographs<br>

of railways (the only reason I would go stateside BTW) I<br>

could be accosted by any local genadrme, found to be a foreigner<br>

from a country that didn't join in the war on terror and be<br>

forthwith asked to leave the country, and never allowed to return.<br>

Dumb? Damn tooting!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'm stunned that even a wedding photographer was detained and questioned (and her camera seized), I guess because terrorists often do reconnaissance by photographing weddings.</p>

<p>So... should we American photographers start writing our congresscritters preemptively, in anticipation that US law might follow the UK's example? Opinions?</p>