As a fully paid up member of the Human Rights Brigade, there's nothing I like better than ensuring criminals and terrorists can go about their business, free from the unfair rules of the public.
Ah, I love that one. No, but seriously, once again the mythical "human rights brigade" (like it's much maligned and equally fictional sister group, the "political correctness brigade") is being given a jolly good kicking in the press for asking a sensible question:
Should low level sonice weapons be put in the hands of private individuals and used against sectors of society without government regulations?
In this case, the weapon in question is the Mosquito, developed by
Compound Security Systems. It emits a high frequency sound that can only be heard by children and young adults, and it causes discomfort. The intended effect is to disperse gangs from hanging about menacingly in front of stores, intimidating customers. So far, so laudable.
The question is a fair one to ask though. Does this device infringe on the rights of children?
Firstly, there is no right of assembly on private property, so the use of these in shopping centres etc is,
prima facie, acceptable. But out on the street? What of the right of peaceable assembly, one of the fundamental rights in our society. If the children concerned are committing no offence, what right has anyone to move them from a place of public assembly? If you can move a group of young
adults along for not reason, what is to stop you targeting another group of unpopular adults?
Secondly, this device causes
discomfort to people up to the age of 25. So what are you saying, the presumption is that if you are under 25, you are a criminal causing trouble? What if you are under 25 and work in a shop close to one of these things? Is the solution you have to give up your livelihood so overly suspicious middle-class middle-aged middle-Englanders can pick up a copy of the Daily Mail without coming into contact with the next generation?
CSS have said that they have "
spent an inordinate amount of time, effort and money making sure the device is safe and doesn't breach anybody's rights". Commendable. But have they conducted a 30, 40, 50 year study into the long-term effects of exposure to this device on auditory capabilities. Have they ascertained that it won't cause long-term damage and tinnitus to young people. And though those over the age of 25 "can't" hear it, are there any effects on those people? Only time will tell, but at the moment an untested and unregulated sonic weapon is unwittingly bombarding people, and we can't say one way or another that it won't cause long term effects.
The unregulated placement of these is also worrying. On The Today show on Radio 4, a ten year old boy was interviewed. He lives above a shop that has one of these. It keeps him awake at night. He cannot sleep.
Sleep deprivation is a form of torture.. This boy has every right to live in his parents' house, and every legitimate expectation not to be kept awake and in discomfort by the devices. The more places that install these, the wider the audio net. How many other children are having their sleep disturbed by these?
What next? How about low level electric shocks, like cattle fences? Put simply, these devices trouble me because the aim is "discomfort", and the purpose is to drive away a sector of society who in many cases are doing nothing wrong, but are viewed with hostility and suspicion by people who have forgotten what it was to be young.
I'd say that at the moment human rights don't come into this, but civil rights certainly do. The idea is good, a non-lethal, non-damaging crowd dispersal system. But it sounds like the kind of thing that a good many people in this country would be concerned about the police having. How much more so in the hands of unaccountable private individuals? And yet no outrage, because the "victims" of the device are "unpopular" - the "feral children" and street gangs. Picking on unpopular segments of society is easy, and those who speak out against it are never welcome. But if you don't look after the legitimate rights of the unpopular, you endanger the rights of everybody.
"But Paul" you cry. What about all those aggressive youths who hang around. What about the fact that, willingly or not, these children are intimidating to others - what about their rights?".
Rather than use low-level systemic torture, why not play classical music? Many shops and museums have discovered that playing classical music deters groups of young people from loitering because "they find it boring".
GOMA, the Glasgow Museum of Modern Art, discovered that playing classical music got rid of the goth and skater kids who used to hang out there. No need to cause discomfort. Nothing that produces a physiological effect on the human nervous system that extended over time could constitute torture.
No rights are being infringed on either side. Shopkeepers can deter the gangs, children and teenagers don't get assaulted with sonic weapons, and 10 year olds can get some sleep.
