As a preamble, it's perhaps worth pointing out that the choice between saving lives (itself a suspiciously unproblematic proposition) and saving the economy is a false choice, symbolic of a culture still seeing through the fogged glass of abstract and insufficient concepts. It is patently absurd to suggest that life - bare or qualified - can today be separated from the claims of economy, or that today we can think of an economy which does not concern itself with the management of human lives down to the smallest quanta. In the modern era, the two have become thoroughly inseparable, culminating today in the affective and big data economies which are transforming - behind the backs of the great mass of the people - what it means to be human.
Nothing signifies this non-choice more starkly than the rates of suicide and attempted suicide that have been recorded during the pandemic period. The London Ambulance Service released figures this week showing call-outs to suicides had doubled between April and September, a revelation that is as tragic as it is unsurprising.
So enough with this false trade-off; this obfuscating "balance". The question about the meaning and implications of the pandemic cannot be sought within such a mundane horizon of thought. That being said, if the concept of Biosecurity, elevated by Giorgio Agamben and a few select others to the level of a political rationality (or governmentality to use Foucault's term), is to be properly characterised and distinguished from previous iterations of a similar kind, then it will be useful to furnish that thinking with some examples from the present crisis, some of which, do appear quite petty and mundane. That's what most of what follows consists of.
Making Space / Controlling Space
Already it is clear that many of the facilities brought in to minimise the spread of infection are here to stay, including the elimination of cash, the forcible shift to home working and the restriction of public assembly, not to mention an explosion in the requirement for individuals to surrender personal data in order to participate in a wide range of social activities. The complexities of these events and the legislative machinations which have enabled them demand an equally careful and detailed analysis. However, it is conspicuous that despite some resent cracks in the consensus, questioning voices - especially those on the Left - have largely been absent.
It’s essential to note that most, if not all these developments, have been on the way for some time prior to the current crisis, and that the pandemic has merely provided the occasional cause for pushing these trends to their natural fulfilment, at a moment when the demos has its guard down and public scrutiny has been similarly in absentia.
In many major cities across the developed world an increasing proportion of public space has already been given over to private ownership, allowing corporations and private security to restrict or regulate activities in these areas; in particular to outlaw protests of any kind. Think back to the Occupy movement in London, where the original target location for the camp, Paternoster square in the city of London, could not be reached owing to the fact that it was owned by a Japanese real-estate company and heavily protected by police.
More recently the large retail development around London’s Kings Cross Station has come under scrutiny due to its heavily securitised and monitored approach to public space, which includes restrictions on photography of any kind and enforcement by facial recognition cameras (now made somewhat redundant due to the prevalence of facial coverings). It would not be surprising to see this relatively crude method of recognition replaced by something more in line with the shift towards mobile phones, Wi-Fi and GPS tracking, systems already central to the notion of "smart cities". Why bother with installing and maintaining cameras when anyone entering the space can be monitored through their phone, perhaps also listening for potentially seditious or anti-consumerist sentiments.
Home working, which for many of us has come like a sudden exile, has similarly been on the rise for some time, coextensive with the growth of jobs which require only an internet connection and the advance of video networking facilities. It’s also been the case that with soaring rents in most European capitals many businesses have been looking to minimise their office footprint and make use of legal loopholes to convert permanent staff into precarious "gig economy entrepreneurs", who rarely, if ever, have to show face at an office. The mass unemployment being caused by coronavirus measures will provide an ample source for industries wanting to bolster their use of low paid "legal" casual labour.
Making Law / Making Money
Wherever we look we see the pandemic being used as an opportunity for forcing through changes that under normal circumstances would be contested or at least scrutinised or mitigated. From central government, down to local council level, provision of education, and businesses, life is becoming ever more closely managed, monitored and open to coercion; not to mention the growing alienation of people from each other, beneath the pall of a generic and ungraspable fear. The use of emergency legislation has been the driving force for much of this, but behind headline making primary legislation like the UK Coronavirus Act 2020, dozens of instances of secondary legislation have been enacted by governments without any legislative scrutiny whatsoever. In the UK this has taken the form of Statutory Instruments, many of which have been made under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 using an exemption which permits orders to be enacted without a draft even being submitted in writing to Parliament.
The exemption's wording mirrors the vague form characteristic of exceptional powers, making provision for ministers to create law by fiat if they believe "by reason of urgency, it is necessary to make the order without a draft being so laid and approved". The function of Parliament in these cases is to rubber stamp legislation that is already a fait accompli. All of the recent changes to laws mandating face coverings, as well as the chaotic system of local lockdowns in England have been enacted in this way. Only recently, seven months into the pandemic have MPs threatened a revolt and pressurised Prime Minister Boris Johnson into some minor concessions on Parliament's oversight of how the pandemic response is being (mis)managed.
On a local level (and I did promise some mundane examples) councils in London and other major cities in England have been using emergency coronavirus powers to introduce what they have called Low Traffic Neighbourhoods. In practice this has meant closing off large numbers of backstreets around the capital, often enforcing these closures using number plate recognition cameras, rather than physical barriers, to issue fines. In my own area three shorts streets connecting the two main arterial roads have been closed to through traffic. I say closed, but what has actually occurred is that cameras have been installed and signs placed at either end, forcing yet more traffic down to an already busy junction, while undoubtedly bolstering the enforcement revenues of Hounslow council.
Measures such as these have been introduced under the guise of providing space for cyclists and pedestrians during the pandemic. No problem, as a cyclist myself I'm all in favour of making streets safer for bikes; though one might wonder why when deaths of cyclists in London have been in the news for years that it took a pandemic for local councils to pull their collective fingers out. Under normal circumstances such closures, which merely shift the problem onto other streets as vehicles take alternative routes to avoid the restrictions, would have to involve local people in consultation. But under the emergency powers this democratic engagement has been entirely bypassed, thus mirroring central government's use of secondary legislation to avoid parliamentary scrutiny.
Another example from the summer
of how these emergency powers are being flagrantly misused occurred in Dorset
in late June when the Liberal Democrat (a byword for opportunist flakery)
council leader declared a Major Incident under the UK Civil Contingencies Act
2004. The event that precipitated this was the beach at Bournemouth becoming
crowded, thus making social distancing potentially harder to achieve. Declaring
this a Major Incident placed the crowded beach on the same level as a terrorist
attack or some other imminent threat to the security of the UK. Visiting the
beach was perfectly legal (I'd been there myself the week before) and it seemed
not to cross the minds of the council leader Vikki Slade, or local constabulary
that failing to either open the public toilets or provide sufficient waste bins
on what was the hottest day of the year might create some aggravation. The
lurch towards 'emergency measures' during 'unprecedented times' is symbolic of
the loss of proportion and rise of arbitrariness under conditions of
Biosecurity. Overnight camping suddenly becomes a national threat.
Fringe Voices and Silenced Voices
It's easy to dismiss lockdown protesters as "covidiots", not least when they include so many far Right activist and overt conspiracy theorists. Followers of the vile QAnon conspiracy, which indulges a bizarre oedipal fantasy casting Donald Trump as a crusader against deep state cannibal paedophiles, join forces with the now familiar 5G paranoiacs and Anti-Vaxxer types, alongside folk carrying banners for the long thought defunct British Union of Fascists. As undoubted an insult to taste and good sense these people are, there is rarely a strategic virtue in allowing one's own position to be defined by the position of one's enemies, or fringe lunatics for that matter.
When we hear talk about totalitarianism or loss of freedom (often from the mouths of those same fringe lunatics) it is useful to think in terms of a State or other entity's capacity for interference, rather than fixating on the content of conspiracy theories. Doing this means we don’t have to find examples of police kicking doors down (though this happens often enough) or secret plans for forced vaccinations, and instead examine the legal, institutional and practical arrangements of power that may or may not enable such interference. The questions we should ask are, what would stop them? What keeps us free in a society, and towards what kind of world does this form of government by decree tend?
Thinking in this way should not distract us from highlighting overt authoritarianism and state violence, many examples of which can be found over previous months. In Australia several individuals have been arrested and charged with incitement to breach coronavirus laws after publicly criticising the government's restrictions, which are some of the most draconian in the world. They included Zoe-Lee Buhler, a pregnant 28 year old woman who was removed from her home in handcuffs in front of her partner and children for setting up a Facebook event called Freedom day, criticising the extent of the state of Victoria's lockdown restrictions. And in August a woman with a medical exemption was violently choked and arrested by police in Melbourne after she was found outside without a face covering.
These incidents follow on from the "detention directions" enforced in July upon a group of tower blocks in suburbs of Flemington and North Melbourne where over 3000 predominantly low income and ethnic minority residents were prevented from leaving their homes for any reason. Armed police guarded the exits to the blocks to enforce compliance of the order, which came without warning. Those familiar with Australia's use of offshore detention facilities, such as on Nauru will no doubt recognise some of the key features here in the state's treatment of its "internal" immigrant population. Indeed, one justification for the use of such offshore camps has been to prevent the spread of infectious disease onto the mainland; a better example of the paradigm of Biosecurity in nuce is hard to find.
In Myanmar, garment workers have been arrested and police have violently broken up strikes under laws designed to minimise the spread of the virus. The workers were protesting against factory conditions which have deteriorated during the pandemic, demanding better protection against getting infected. Actions such as these are the most visible signs of repression, but it is often the more subtle techniques that have the greatest effect. The use of fines to stifle government opposition has been a technique successfully deployed by Singapore for decades and has contributed to the microstate's reputation as a benign dictatorship which was much admired by the then chairman of the Chinese Communist party Deng Xiaoping.
£10,000 fines are now being issued to organisers of protests in the UK. In August one such fine was issued to Piers Corbyn, brother of the former Labour party leader, after organising an anti-lockdown protest, which as a political protest was exempt from the regulations. In a sign that coronavirus legislation is already being used to stifle legitimate protest of all kinds, the climate change campaign group Extinction Rebellion cancelled planned events in the Spring after being threatened with similar fines. When they did go ahead with actions in late summer many organisers and activists were pre-emptively arrested and the protests placed under restrictions using coronavirus laws which made them practically impossible.
At the same time professional psychopath and nominal UK Home Secretary Priti Patel was attempting to have XR classified as an organised crime group, claiming in a speech to the Police Superintendents Association that the environmental campaigners were "attacking our way of life". That way of life, it's worth remembering, is leading us to planetary extinction. Since the system of tiered restrictions have been introduced the number of fines issued have dramatically increased, with minorities being disproportionately targeted, and gatherings in private homes frequently falling foul of regulations, which even regional police and crime commissioners seem not to understand.
Tracking and Tracing from Serco to Xinjiang
In case you haven't noticed, digital apartheid is here. For those of us not terrified to leave our homes entrance to many venues is now dependent on downloading apps and using smart phones to book or access services and to register on test and trace. Having an up-to-date smart phone and submitting to the reign of total surveillance will increasingly become a prerequisite for accessing any public or private service, from transport and council facilities, to accessing concert and theatre venues, to simply entering a pub or bar. Those who cannot or will not maintain their digital passport will effectively be frozen out of society. And those who do comply will be under the permanent gaze of ubiquitous surveillance technologies and data harvesting, which in turn are used to produce tailored advertising and political messaging.
In China, Korea and Singapore, citizens have no right to privacy or data protection from government surveillance. In China, technologies developed to monitor Uighurs and other Muslim ethnic groups in Xinjiang province have been rolled out nationwide to enforce lockdowns and other coronavirus measures. They include systems on public transport which can detect whether a person is wearing their face mask correctly. The lack of democratic oversight and normalisation of surveillance technologies is however not limited to illiberal East Asian countries. Across Europe few limitations have been placed on the use of track and trace data accumulated through mobile phones and other methods.
In the UK which has had several faltering attempts to introduce a centralised system, track and trace data is not comprehensively covered by the UK Data Protection Act. This has meant that developers of apps downloaded onto phones for the purpose of "checking-in" to venues, cafes, cinemas and restaurants have been able to sell on databases of contact details as well as additional metadata harvested from the user's phone. There has been a spate of scam track and trace calls where the scammer attempts to obtain bank account details by claiming they're needed to allow the person to book a coronavirus test. The UK government's test and trace system is being marketed as an NHS service, but is in fact being run by Serco staff. The outsourcing firm has come under pressure as the time taken to get test results and trace contacts have ballooned, along with the cost of running the service.
Staying the UK, a particularly egregious example of intentional mismanagement for financial gain has been the return of students to UK university campuses, a move very much pushed by both the government and the universities themselves. No sooner than student halls of residence were full than the government ended its relaxation of the restrictions and began imposing local lockdowns. Students lured away from home found themselves under house arrest after being conned into handing over cash for university accommodation which they were now being prevented by security from leaving. Trinity college Cambridge has forced students to sign tenancy agreements which say they can be evicted at short notice and instructed them only to bring the bare minimum of belongings. Teaching is now predictably all remote. A trend which is likely to be permanent for many courses.
Wither Opposition?
As the above litany demonstrates, the pandemic is being used opportunistically from top to bottom. It is regrettable that opposition to the current regime of arbitrary restrictions is predominantly coming from the conspiracist fringes and far Right. The Left for the most part has walked in lockstep with every government measure, save only where they demanded that restrictions should go further, as has recently occurred with Labour leader Kier Starmer's demand for a circuit breaker lockdown in the UK. Giorgio Agamben in one of his numerous interventions during the pandemic has pointed out the “paradox of organizations of the left, traditionally in the habit of claiming rights and denouncing violations of the constitution, accepting limitations on liberty made by ministerial decree devoid of any legal basis and which even fascism couldn’t dream of imposing”.
A very charitable reading might wonder whether leftist demands for a second national lockdown in the UK are designed precisely to precipitate the kind of economic collapse upon which a new post-capitalist form of social order could arise. Could Starmer yet be a deep cover Corbynista agent? In all seriousness, it has come to something when we have to rely on “disaster nationalists” like arch Brexiteer Steven Baker MP to make the case for liberty and oversight in Parliament.
These are some of the day to day realities of living under Biosecurity measures. With no end in sight we can expect the kinds of societal changes I've highlighted above to become more deeply entrenched. Anyone who believes that the emergency powers and Biosecurity legislation brought in will disappear after the pandemic should think back to the months immediately after September 11th 2001 and the raft of draconian powers brought in during the War on Terror. The majority of those powers, such as the US Patriot Act 2001 and the UK Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act (2001) are still on the statute books. Many have been extended over the years, adapting to new possibilities afforded by developments in digital technologies. Power does not let a crisis go to waste, and a crisis combined with a fearful population does not bode well for the health of democracy.
No comments:
Post a Comment