WWID – The thoughts and responses

OK, so – following on from this post where Gordon asked what I’d do in relation to terorrist plots, here’s a few thoughts.

Bear in mind these are all based on a couple of fairly major assumptions, namely

1. I’m Prime Minister, or equally high up in government
2. I can also turn back time
3. I have the power and support to do these things – although not as a dictatorship, obviously. That’s got its own problems

Because the first thing I’d do is tell the US to sod off, heed my own people’s obvious protest and marches etc., and not get involved in the war in Iraq. Personally I believe that one decision would’ve saved us all a lot of the hassle that’s followed. Simply standing up, heeding the electorate’s voice/wishes, and looking like a respectable statesman and “man of the people”, rather than some renfield of Bush.

As for the hysteria and hype regarding terror plots and the like, I would probably do the following:

• Not use the “threat level indicator” as a political and media tool – Bruce Shneier writes about this far more eloquently than I can – but instead attempt the (for a politician) earth-shatteringly different policy of being honest. Currently that level is “Severe” which means “an attack is highly likely”. Which really is just mealy-mouthed political bullshit. It doesn’t give a timescale, it doesn’t give any indications, and that status could apply anytime, anywhere. There’s always the chance of an attack somewhere, sometime.
• Carrying on from that, I think just a basic rider of Being Honest would work wonders, particularly if also blended with some common sense, rather than hysterical reaction.
• Personally I’d also try to have worked to provide a relationship with the media that also wasn’t based around hysteria and panic. Perhaps prosecuting some of the papers and/or TV media for promoting racial hatred and bigotry would do the job.

And with regard to airport security and the like? Hmm, I don’t know just yet. I agree that security checks are necessary – but (again going with that Honesty and non-Hysteria thing) I’d want ones that actually did something. The hysterical reactions to stupid shit like the “shoe-bomber”, and now having to remove shoes – that’d get stopped. Or if shoe checks are necessary then you bloody well make sure that you provide benches or something for people to sit on and put the damn things back on again afterwards…

I’d not have put in a lot of the crap about nail-clippers etc. in the main security check, though. What I would do would be put the security screeners on a decent wage, rather than being at minimum wages. If it became necessary, make that section into a government organisation, and do it efficiently. Pay for decent people instead of minimum wage, and get people who are capable of making the process a lot smoother and more efficient. Enforce getting decent training, and also arrange for full-blown training exercises. That is the way to get both the airports, the staff, and the public used to this sort of issue – do it, while making it very public that this is a training exercise – give people warning of what they will and will not be able to do during that training exercise. So you make it real, and yes, it’ll be a pain in the arse, but it means everyone knows what’s going on.

I think actually that works as an idea.

But it’s not just airports – it’s making people aware without making them paranoid. I haven’t quite got that sussed yet.

What I would do though is look at the bigger issues. Personally I believe wholeheartedly in an integrated society – where all people are treated the same. I know I’ve caused ructions about this before, and I never explain it all that well, but basically I believe that people should be treated the way we wish to be treated. I don’t want to force my religion, beliefs, creed, or whatever down anyone else’s throat, and I don’t believe anyone else should be allowed to do the same to me. At the same time though, I think that people should accept others, and not try to use the differences in order to divide and pigeonhole. Unfortunately, I think that’s too optimistic, because by nature Man seems to want to divide, categorise, and pigeonhole – and build up wars and conflict around those differences.

So if I were PM? The main thing I would do would be to bring in a policy of equality. Not lip-service, not this bullshit “inclusive” society where every little faction has it’s own sector – which seems to be what most people think “inclusive” means. In my experiences with local government and the like, being “inclusive” meant having a seperate department and “team” for every different faith in the area, every racial background, every sexuality and orientation, and to me that was actually divisive, not inclusive.

Equality – treating everyone the same, that’s the idea. Working so that people don’t feel minimised, disowned, disenfranchised, and thus don’t despise their own country.

Or am I completely wrong? I’m looking forward to the comments on this one…