DEBATEdddd
DEBATEdddd
For:
1. Increased Surveillance: Some argue that the UK has been steadily increasing
surveillance measures over the years, with extensive use of CCTV cameras, facial
recognition technology, and online monitoring. This heightened surveillance can be
seen as indicative of a move towards a more authoritarian state where the
government exerts greater control over its citizens.
2. Legislation: The UK government has introduced various pieces of legislation,
such as the Investigatory Powers Act (2016), which grants authorities broad powers
to monitor communications and collect data. Critics argue that such laws erode
civil liberties and privacy rights, contributing to a more authoritarian state.
3. Police Powers: There have been instances where police powers have been expanded,
such as the ability to stop and search individuals without reasonable suspicion
under Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act. Critics argue that
these expanded powers can lead to abuses of authority and disproportionately target
certain communities, furthering the perception of a police state.
Against:
1. Democratic Institutions: The UK has a robust system of democratic institutions,
including free and fair elections, an independent judiciary, and a free press.
These institutions serve as checks and balances against authoritarianism, ensuring
that power remains accountable to the people.
2. Legal Safeguards: While there have been criticisms of certain laws and policies,
the UK also has legal safeguards in place to protect civil liberties and human
rights. Courts have the authority to review the legality of government actions, and
individuals have the right to challenge government decisions through legal avenues.
3. Public Oversight: There is public debate and scrutiny over government actions,
including issues related to surveillance and police powers. Civil society
organizations, media outlets, and advocacy groups play a vital role in holding the
government accountable and advocating for transparency and accountability in
governance.
Final decision- against