POSTED: 10 AUGUST 2009

AC Grayling, Liberty in the Age of Terror: A Defence of Civil Liberties and Enlightenment Values

(Bloomsbury | 304pp paperback | $35)

The topic of how democratic societies can balance civil liberties, while facing the challenge posed by terrorism, is certainly timely.

Never before have citizens in the US, UK, Australia and elsewhere been subjected to such scrutiny by the security apparatus of the state — CC-TV, phone taps, database mining, email trawling. All in the name of fighting Terror.

And who would complain? Aren’t we all prepared to sacrifice some freedoms for the sake of the safety of our loved ones? After all, why should we mind if we have nothing to hide?

It is the danger lurking in this seductive emotional response that AC Grayling, Professor of Philosophy at the University of London, seeks to discuss in his latest book, Liberty in the Age of Terror: A Defence of Civil Liberties and Enlightenment Values.

For it is his fear that, in the hysteria of the times, we are giving away far more than we should, and we won’t realize it until it is too late. We only have to look at the current move in NSW to tighten laws on the freedom to associate — aimed publicly at bikie gangs — to see this in operation. As Grayling writes, the problem with this kind of government response lies in who else could be caught up in these laws later, a phenomenon he refers to as “mission creep”.

Discussion on this point therefore appears vital, and really needs to be widespread — but books such as this run the risk of only really preaching to the converted. Grayling certainly has worthwhile things to say, but falls into this trap, coming across as what he is — a professor of philosophy. It is hard to see his discussion on the nature of identity, tolerance and enlightenment values reaching a wider audience — even if he is quite right, that we all had better think again about what is important to us.

I found this a frustrating book to read. I was relieved that Grayling also roundly condemns those who use indiscriminate acts of terrorism and includes a chapter on combating terrorism. Sometimes outspoken civil libertarians can come across as more interested in attacking their own nations than in suggesting what we could do instead.

However, this chapter really left me none the wiser. Declaring that different circumstances are going to require suitably tailored initiatives; that governments and NGOs will need to apply well-researched strategies for the medium and long terms; and that we private citizens should encourage and support these efforts, doesn’t seem to provide much of a blueprint.

This is a debate we have to have and thinkers like Professor Grayling have an extremely important role to play. The difficulty lies in transferring philosophical discussion from academia to a wider audience — since if democracy is truly in jeopardy, it is up to the people to defend it.