Liberty in the Age of Terror: A Defence of Civil Liberties and Enlightenment Values [Kindle Edition]

This is a really helpful book if you want to understand and take part in the debates about security and human rights surrounding the "War on Terror", especially the often controversial new powers given to the police and government. The author runs through topics such as ID cards, public safety, censorship, CCTV and privacy in a lively fashion, cutting through to the underlying principles that can often be obscured by political spin and media coverage. He writes very clearly. At times the writing seems hurried and a little repetitive, but it is always extremely readable.

From a practical point of view I thought the book does two things particularly well. First, it takes rather woolly liberal ideas such as "tolerance" and "free speech" and distills them down to clear ethical principles, making them both easier to discuss and to defend. Secondly, it puts forward clear responses to the weasel-words and spin used by politicians as they seek to justify their policies.

The final third of the book - where the author engages with the ideas of other thinkers on liberty, such as Isaiah Berlin and Roger Scruton - is perhaps less effective. Again the writing is very clear and the discussion interesting, but the debates aren't really given enough space to fully flesh out the points at issue.

Overall, highly recommended.

The arguments for the establishment and sustenance of Liberties and Freedoms are well rehearsed here. There is nothing which might upset the servants or the animals. What there is, however, is a cogent rephrasing and reminding of what we have achieved in the West in terms of social cohesion by respecting the first principles of Democracy - or variations of these. There is also the menacing idea of just how we are destroying these principles in the name of security. Grayling is at his most appealing when he speaks, understandably, of our continued non-thinking inertia, the surrendering of liberties and freedoms due to our complacency: a perception of which is not lost on any of the ruling political classes. I think that he over-emphazises this but, then again, perhaps he is right. If we are losing our rights and liberties in what is classed as an age of terror, then it is surely a moment for deep reflection. And that is what Grayling appears to be inciting us to do.

The second half of the book is concerned with the varying perceptions of liberality which are endorsed - or otherwise - by other philosophers. This is a cogent and necessary reminder of what other political philosophers have to say. Grayling has summarised their views and it is up to the reader to determine whether he has been accurate and fair in this project. His comments and conclusions regarding his resumé are, by nature, arbitrary and peremptory. All the same, I believe that, he has got things broadly right.

This is a superb book: it is a polemic which informs you, provokes you to think and then makes you question the current political orthodoxy which we are - until now, impassively accepting - or worse, unaware.

AC Grayling eloquently condemns and brings to our attention how our civil liberties are being eroded under the pretext of the 'War on Terror'. He points out that many of the invasive laws in the UK were brought into being before the terrorist catastrophes of 9/11, such as the Terrorism Act and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act of 2000. Grayling does point out how 9/11 has made things worse with even more irrational, draconian, covert and intrusive laws being passed - very much a victory for the illiberal terrorists who crashed the planes and carried out subsequent attacks in Bali, Madrid and London. Now we are all potentially sleeping terrorist timebombs.

Another of Grayling's strengths is to show that radical Islamism is very much a product of the liberal West, as it is a violent reaction against it by people who have been exposed to western liberal education and lifestyles. However, Grayling does not adequately criticise the weaknesses of the political left and anti-war movements, who come up with the over-simplistic arguments that the war in Iraq was about oil (which Grayling agrees with) and that the wars the UK is fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq are inextricably responsible for terrorist atrocities carried out in the West or against Western tourists in Bali or Mumbai

The central weakness of Grayling's thesis is his belief in legalistic measures - he supports the arbitrary and draconian smoking ban; believes libel is an adequate legal redress for 'false' allegations - he should note how wealthy foreign celebrities like Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, thanks to the UK libel laws, can sue British newspapers even though they are not UK citizens or residents. On a broader note, his support for an International Criminal Court does not come with any questioning of the rights of Western powers to intervene in foreign conflicts e.g. Yugoslavia, and does not examine the possible motives and interests of Western powers (the very people who set up bodies like the ICC) in taking sides in these particular conflicts. That is not to say that the idea of all 'war criminals' being brought to justice isn't a bad thing, but somehow I can't see the day when any American, British or Western leaders or officers will be put in the dock. He fails to see the ICC for what it is: a symbol of Western dominance, and an expensive, bureaucratic and undemocratic mess.

In spite of the book's flaws, its greatest strength is the polemic against the UK government's undermining of our civil liberties and our privacy. However, Grayling falls short by advocating legalistic measures to problems that themselves have been exacerbated and brought into being by too much unwarranted legislation.