(Bus) Safety

It is very possible that there is a person alive in Winnipeg today who would not be had Vince Weiguang Li been denied his knife of a Greyhound Bus in July of 2008. His horrible, tragic, unprovoked, and brutal murder of fellow passenger Tim McLean was not a rational act, and was a crime that likely would have been committed eventually anyways, and would not have been stopped by increased bus security.

And yet, an increase in security is exactly what Greyhound intends to do. Passengers in major terminals may now be swept by hand-held metal detectors, have their luggage checked, and may be required to store all luggage save for purses and wallets under the bus (CBC, 4 Dec 2008). Greyhound officials say that these measures are the result of a two-year safety study, and do not directly relate to any one incident. I am all for increased safety, but all that these measures lead to is an increase in security instead.

It is hard to argue that metal detectors and luggage searches that remove knives from buses will not lead to an increase in security. But at the expense of time, money, and personal freedom, these measures overpower the safety they look to ensure. Particularly concerning is the prospect of not being allowed carry-on luggage. I often travel with a newspaper, book, camera, snack, water, etc. and such a provision would make this impossible. The Greyhound is great because it is cheap and fast, and does not require reservations, however these security features put that in jeopardy, as wait times and costs would surely increase.

Knee-jerk reactions of increased surveillance and inspection are indicative of a time and place where a Prime Minister gets re-elected with a tough-on-crime agenda. We are constantly being warned about the threats to our safety, whether it's killers on the bus or terrorists sending signals across Swedish borders. Furthermore, the only way to stop these threats is increased surveillance and harsher penalties.

What these theories fail to address is the root of the problems, and instead they just exacerbate them by directing funding away from development and into punishment, and locking criminals up, together, for longer periods of time, with less effort directed towards rehabilitation. The justice system is supposed to serve three simultaneous purposes: punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation. Punishment is really simply a primal instinct for revenge, and does not serve a whole lot of purpose beyond satiating our desire to see this. I do not deny possessing these feelings myself, but in the grand scheme of justice and society, it serves the least purpose of all three. Deterrence commits the fallacy of assuming that all criminals are as rational as those making the laws. Vince Weiguang Li was clearly not deterred by any threat of capture. Most crimes have underlying factors (mental health issues; drug addiction; lack of social support) that cannot be fully understood by those on the outside to whom dislike for prison would be a rational deterrent. Perhaps the best example of harsher penalties not leading to a decrease in crime is the lack of correlation between the death penalty and a lower homicide rate.

That leaves rehabilitation, which can be tied together with prevention. Only by investing in discovering and addressing the root of the problem can crime ever really be effectively dealt with. This may seem like an obvious and vague conclusion, and not really offer any tangible direction on how to spend limited resources. I don't pretend to have the answers, but I know that Greyhound drivers with metal detectors is not one of them. We are continuing to invest more and more in our infrastructure and our youth, and particularly with at-risk groups, and I believe this will ultimately prove to be the method that best quells the flow of crime.

RM

The FRA Law: Sweden as a Survellience Society

Sweden is likely to soon become the strictest country in Western society in terms of surveillance of electronic communication. On January 1st 2009 a new law will come into effect that has been given the informal name of “The FRA Law.”

FRA is an acronym for Försvarets Radioanstält, or in English the Defense Radio Institute, which is that authourity that will govern the use of signals intelligence that is legitimized by the new law.

The FRA Law is actually more of a movement that influences several different Swedish laws. It implies that wired communication can be surveyed whereas before only wireless communication could be surveyed. The law will also affect the way that personal information can be used.

On the other hand however the FRA Law has to follow several rules in order to gather and use signal intelligence. Among these are rules that require FRA to receive permission before they can gather information and a requirement that they will only use the information with direct consent from the Supreme Court. Furthermore signals intelligence will only be used on signals that cross Swedish borders. In other words they will not be allowed to gather information when both the sender and receiver are within Sweden.

Essentially the FRA Law is an attempt to reduce the threat of attacks from other countries as well as terrorism. The law has been strongly opposed by many politicians as well as ordinary citizens because of the way the law breaches their personal privacy. The are many that are worried that this law is a step towards a surveillance society not unlike the one in George Orwell’s famous novel “1984.” Some critics of the law have even dubbed it as “The 1984 Law.”

Personally I have mixed feelings about this. In one way it is always good to be careful with regards things like terrorism, especially in today’s world. In the same way Sweden is a country that has a tendency to be too careful. Of course terrorism is a reality, but where exactly is the threat coming from? Terrorist attacks are very rare in Sweden and it seems unlikely that this trend will change anytime soon.

Furthermore, the FRA Law infringes on personal privacy. It is a human right to think and say what one wants without having someone listening in. The problem is that this law is unlikely to be used in the way it was intended to and the potential for abuse is high. The likelihood that the FRA Law will uncover any terrorists is low this law could breed mistrust and suspicion within Swedish society. The FRA Law could also hurt the relationship between Sweden and other countries that aren’t fond of the law and could also awaken feelings of xenophobia because the law is essentially based on the mistrust of foreigners.

Ultimately I think this law is not as dangerous as it is made out to be but for the most part rather un-necessary.