What do you think?
Rate this book
Liberty in the Age of Terror: A Defence of Civil Liberties and Enlightenment Values by Grayling, A. C. (2010) Paperback
"The means of defence against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home." James MadisonOur societies, says Anthony Grayling, are under attack not only from the threat of terrorism, but also from our governments' attempts to fight that threat by reducing freedom in our own societies - think the 42-day detention controversy, CCTV surveillance, increasing invasion of privacy, ID Cards, not to mention Abu Ghraib, rendition, Guantanamo…As Grayling 'There should be a special place for political irony in the catalogues of human folly. Starting a war 'to promote freedom and democracy' could in certain though rare circumstances be a justified act; but in the case of the Second Gulf War that began in 2003, which involved reacting to criminals hiding in one country (Al Qaeda in Afghanistan or Pakistan) by invading another country (Iraq), one of the main fronts has, dismayingly, been the home front, where the War on Terror takes the form of a War on Civil Liberties in the spurious name of security. To defend 'freedom and democracy', Western governments attack and diminish freedom and democracy in their own country. By this logic, someone will eventually have to invade the US and UK to restore freedom and democracy to them.'In this lucid and timely book, Grayling sets out what's at risk, engages with the arguments for and against examining the cases made by Isaiah Berlin and Ronald Dworkin on the one hand, and Roger Scruton and John Gray on the other, and finally proposes a different way to respond that makes defending the civil liberties on which western society is founded the cornerstone for defeating terrorism.
283 pages, Paperback
First published June 24, 2009
21 people are currently reading
168 people want to read
About the author
A.C. Grayling
95 books666 followersAnthony Clifford "A. C." Grayling is a British philosopher. In 2011 he founded and became the first Master of New College of the Humanities, an independent undergraduate college in London. Until June 2011, he was Professor of Philosophy at Birkbeck, University of London, where he taught from 1991. He is also a supernumerary fellow of St Anne's College, Oxford.
He is a director and contributor at Prospect Magazine, as well as a Vice President of the British Humanist Association. His main academic interests lie in epistemology, metaphysics and philosophical logic. He has described himself as "a man of the left" and is associated in Britain with the new atheism movement, and is sometimes described as the 'Fifth Horseman of New Atheism'. He appears in the British media discussing philosophy.
He is a director and contributor at Prospect Magazine, as well as a Vice President of the British Humanist Association. His main academic interests lie in epistemology, metaphysics and philosophical logic. He has described himself as "a man of the left" and is associated in Britain with the new atheism movement, and is sometimes described as the 'Fifth Horseman of New Atheism'. He appears in the British media discussing philosophy.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
February 2, 2014
‘If you’ve got nothing to fear then you’ve got nothing to hide’ is what we’re told by governments and politicians looking to justify ever-increasing constraints on free speech, privacy and civil liberties, all in the name of fighting the nebulous ‘War on Terror’. With fresh revelations about activities of GCHQ and the NSA arriving nearly every other day, AC Grayling’s polemical Liberty in the Age of Terror, now five years old, is even more relevant today than at the time of its publication.
In part one, Grayling outlines just why privacy and the most fundamental right of all, freedom of speech, matter, and how, in their eagerness to be seen to be doing something, politicians are quick to put in place laws and legislation that infringe on these rights and create more problems, both practical and ethical, than they solve. Biometric ID cards, blanket CCTV coverage, the tracking emails and telephone calls, and blasphemy laws are just a some of the examples Grayling uses to eloquently argue the case that we are in the midst of a fundamental change in the relationship between the citizen and the state, a relationship in which individuals are becoming suspects first, essentially guilty until proven innocent.
That ‘the price of freedom is eternal vigilance’ (a quote commonly attributed to Thomas Jefferson) is a central theme of the book. In willingly, or passively, allowing your freedoms to be eroded because you feel you have ‘nothing to hide’, Grayling says your complacency requires that you believe: “... that the authorities will always be benign; will always reliably identify and interfere with genuinely bad people only; will never find themselves engaging in ‘mission creep’, with more and more uses to put their new powers and capabilities to; will not redefine crimes, nor redefine various behaviours or views now regarded as acceptable, to extend the range of things for which people can be placed under suspicion—and so considerably on.”
The proposed Injunction to Prevent Nuisance and Disorder (IPNA) civil order to replace (Antisocial Behavioural Orders (ASBOs), which would permit injunctions against anyone aged over 10 who "has engaged or threatens to engage in conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person" (my emphasis), is a recent example of the UK government (which is the focus of Liberty in the Age of Terror) demonstrating exactly why that trust is not justified.
Being deemed a 'nuisance' or 'annoying', nebulous terms that are ripe for misunderstanding and abuse, are deemed things the police can potentially take action against you for. Thankfully, the House of Lords saw sense and required that the bill be ammended.
Lord Dear (a former chief constable of West Midlands) has this to say about IPNAs:
“It risks it being used for those who seek to protest peacefully, noisy children in the street, street preachers, canvassers, carol singers, trick-or-treaters, church bell ringers, clay pigeon shooters, nudists. This is a crowded island that we live in and we must exercise a degree surely of tolerance and forbearance. ” — http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2...
Lady Mallalieu, a QC and Labour peer:
“My main concern is the extent to which lowering the threshold to behaviour capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person has the potential to undermine our fundamental freedoms and, in particular, the way in which the proposed law might be used to curb protest and freedom of expression.” — http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2...
Unfortunately, it looks as though the amendments appear to be in wording only. ‘Nuisance’ and ‘annoyance’ will be replaced with ‘harassment, alarm or distress’, the terms used in the ASBO legislation. One set of nebulous words are to be replaced with another, with the principle of the legislation - and its liberty reducing nature - remaining the same.
More recent still, there was the proposal which could see terror suspects (suspects mind, not people who have actually been convicted of anything) stripped of their citizenship and left stateless. How any sensible government can think this is a good idea is beyond me.
Grayling does concede that in the case of a real threat from terrorism, some curbs to freedom may need to be enacted, drawing on the Second World War as an example. Curfews and ID cards were in place at a time of genuine existential threat but these were strictly time-limited. Once the threat was over, freedoms and rights were restored. Grayling suggests that all laws which impinge on civil liberties should have ‘sunset clauses’, which strictly stipulate when the law must be reviewed in order for it to continue to stand or be repealed. What we have at the moment, particularly in the UK and the US, are non-specific, non-time-limited acts, which once in place are hard to remove and only pave the way for things to get worse.
In Part 2 of the book, Debates, Grayling discusses the works and arguments of other prominent philosophers, including Isaiah Berlin, John Gray, Slavoj Zizek (whom he really takes to the sword), John Ralston and Tzveten Todorov. Here, the arguments are dense, but also more varied. Where Part 1 was focused largely on the principles of freedom of speech and civil liberties, here we get digressions on the value of humanism (in his evisceration of John Gray’s contrary pessimism) and a staunch defense of the United Nation’s Declaration of Human Rights against short-sighted critics who deride it for not immediately solving the world’s, and moral relativists who see is an imposition by ‘the West’. The debates section is perhaps one that needs to be read twice, if at all in fact. Whilst it’s a lesson in combative philosophical debate, the wider arguments set out in Part 1 can get lost and it’s occasionally very heavy going.
Both appendices are, however, well worth your time. The first is a precise of the UDHR a wonderful and valuable tool and stepping stone on the way to a fairer, open and just peaceable world. The second is a history of the tsunami of legislation introduced by Labour government the Bush administration that has eroded civil liberties post 9/11 and come close to running contra to many of the principles laid out in the UDHR. The number of illiberal, ill-thought-out laws and acts brought introduced by to the UK by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown’s governments is astounding and the potted history of the NSA since 2000, and its relationship with both the US government and the private sector, also makes for gruesome reading. You wonder why ‘if you’ve got nothing to fear then you’ve got nothing to hide’ governments and organisations like GCHQ and NSA try so hard to keep secrets.
As a collection of Grayling’s previous writings brought together in book form, Liberty in the Age of Terror can occasionally feel repetitive, but I don’t see this as a wholly negative, as much of what he says is important enough to bear repeating. This book makes for sobering frightening reading, but is also a call to arms for those who do not wish to relinquish their hard-won freedoms and rights.
Ben Franklin’s “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety” appears several times throughout Liberty in the Age of Terror ; e would do well to keep that in mind if we are not to end up in world where Room 101 becomes a reality.
In part one, Grayling outlines just why privacy and the most fundamental right of all, freedom of speech, matter, and how, in their eagerness to be seen to be doing something, politicians are quick to put in place laws and legislation that infringe on these rights and create more problems, both practical and ethical, than they solve. Biometric ID cards, blanket CCTV coverage, the tracking emails and telephone calls, and blasphemy laws are just a some of the examples Grayling uses to eloquently argue the case that we are in the midst of a fundamental change in the relationship between the citizen and the state, a relationship in which individuals are becoming suspects first, essentially guilty until proven innocent.
That ‘the price of freedom is eternal vigilance’ (a quote commonly attributed to Thomas Jefferson) is a central theme of the book. In willingly, or passively, allowing your freedoms to be eroded because you feel you have ‘nothing to hide’, Grayling says your complacency requires that you believe: “... that the authorities will always be benign; will always reliably identify and interfere with genuinely bad people only; will never find themselves engaging in ‘mission creep’, with more and more uses to put their new powers and capabilities to; will not redefine crimes, nor redefine various behaviours or views now regarded as acceptable, to extend the range of things for which people can be placed under suspicion—and so considerably on.”
The proposed Injunction to Prevent Nuisance and Disorder (IPNA) civil order to replace (Antisocial Behavioural Orders (ASBOs), which would permit injunctions against anyone aged over 10 who "has engaged or threatens to engage in conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person" (my emphasis), is a recent example of the UK government (which is the focus of Liberty in the Age of Terror) demonstrating exactly why that trust is not justified.
Being deemed a 'nuisance' or 'annoying', nebulous terms that are ripe for misunderstanding and abuse, are deemed things the police can potentially take action against you for. Thankfully, the House of Lords saw sense and required that the bill be ammended.
Lord Dear (a former chief constable of West Midlands) has this to say about IPNAs:
“It risks it being used for those who seek to protest peacefully, noisy children in the street, street preachers, canvassers, carol singers, trick-or-treaters, church bell ringers, clay pigeon shooters, nudists. This is a crowded island that we live in and we must exercise a degree surely of tolerance and forbearance. ” — http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2...
Lady Mallalieu, a QC and Labour peer:
“My main concern is the extent to which lowering the threshold to behaviour capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person has the potential to undermine our fundamental freedoms and, in particular, the way in which the proposed law might be used to curb protest and freedom of expression.” — http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2...
Unfortunately, it looks as though the amendments appear to be in wording only. ‘Nuisance’ and ‘annoyance’ will be replaced with ‘harassment, alarm or distress’, the terms used in the ASBO legislation. One set of nebulous words are to be replaced with another, with the principle of the legislation - and its liberty reducing nature - remaining the same.
More recent still, there was the proposal which could see terror suspects (suspects mind, not people who have actually been convicted of anything) stripped of their citizenship and left stateless. How any sensible government can think this is a good idea is beyond me.
Grayling does concede that in the case of a real threat from terrorism, some curbs to freedom may need to be enacted, drawing on the Second World War as an example. Curfews and ID cards were in place at a time of genuine existential threat but these were strictly time-limited. Once the threat was over, freedoms and rights were restored. Grayling suggests that all laws which impinge on civil liberties should have ‘sunset clauses’, which strictly stipulate when the law must be reviewed in order for it to continue to stand or be repealed. What we have at the moment, particularly in the UK and the US, are non-specific, non-time-limited acts, which once in place are hard to remove and only pave the way for things to get worse.
In Part 2 of the book, Debates, Grayling discusses the works and arguments of other prominent philosophers, including Isaiah Berlin, John Gray, Slavoj Zizek (whom he really takes to the sword), John Ralston and Tzveten Todorov. Here, the arguments are dense, but also more varied. Where Part 1 was focused largely on the principles of freedom of speech and civil liberties, here we get digressions on the value of humanism (in his evisceration of John Gray’s contrary pessimism) and a staunch defense of the United Nation’s Declaration of Human Rights against short-sighted critics who deride it for not immediately solving the world’s, and moral relativists who see is an imposition by ‘the West’. The debates section is perhaps one that needs to be read twice, if at all in fact. Whilst it’s a lesson in combative philosophical debate, the wider arguments set out in Part 1 can get lost and it’s occasionally very heavy going.
Both appendices are, however, well worth your time. The first is a precise of the UDHR a wonderful and valuable tool and stepping stone on the way to a fairer, open and just peaceable world. The second is a history of the tsunami of legislation introduced by Labour government the Bush administration that has eroded civil liberties post 9/11 and come close to running contra to many of the principles laid out in the UDHR. The number of illiberal, ill-thought-out laws and acts brought introduced by to the UK by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown’s governments is astounding and the potted history of the NSA since 2000, and its relationship with both the US government and the private sector, also makes for gruesome reading. You wonder why ‘if you’ve got nothing to fear then you’ve got nothing to hide’ governments and organisations like GCHQ and NSA try so hard to keep secrets.
As a collection of Grayling’s previous writings brought together in book form, Liberty in the Age of Terror can occasionally feel repetitive, but I don’t see this as a wholly negative, as much of what he says is important enough to bear repeating. This book makes for sobering frightening reading, but is also a call to arms for those who do not wish to relinquish their hard-won freedoms and rights.
Ben Franklin’s “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety” appears several times throughout Liberty in the Age of Terror ; e would do well to keep that in mind if we are not to end up in world where Room 101 becomes a reality.
October 25, 2011
This is the first new book (not secondhand) that I've bought for ages and I picked it up both for it's subject matter and for my curiosity about the author who seems to keep popping up in stuff I'm reading and listening to.
This is an argument for a written British constitution as a safeguard against the erosion of our civil liberties. It is also an argument for liberalism and Enlightenment and an argument against those who oppose it.
It covers many of the usual issues surrounding identity, surveillance and privacy. It's nicely written and totally quotable and the arguments are mostly sound... there's some stuff I'd not agree with although I do like the basis of his ideas, especially the paradox that liberalism allows iliberal ideas to flourish.
A good read but it won't make you feel too happy.
This is an argument for a written British constitution as a safeguard against the erosion of our civil liberties. It is also an argument for liberalism and Enlightenment and an argument against those who oppose it.
It covers many of the usual issues surrounding identity, surveillance and privacy. It's nicely written and totally quotable and the arguments are mostly sound... there's some stuff I'd not agree with although I do like the basis of his ideas, especially the paradox that liberalism allows iliberal ideas to flourish.
A good read but it won't make you feel too happy.
January 7, 2013
Quite a good introduction to the ideas and philosophy of liberalism and the challenges to personal liberty post 9/11, it is mainly focussed on the worrying infringements that the British government is trying to enforce and what can possibly be done about it.
His ideas on sunset clauses and a written constitution are to be applauded but I think unlikely to occur in this country for some time.
There is also a second part to his defense of civil liberty where he debates other major writers such as Gray, Dworkin etc and I found these pieces interesting if a little sort.
Overall, a good place to start if you want to get the crux of liberal enlightenment philosophy without delving into the established works of the likes of Mill, Kant, Hume etc.
His ideas on sunset clauses and a written constitution are to be applauded but I think unlikely to occur in this country for some time.
There is also a second part to his defense of civil liberty where he debates other major writers such as Gray, Dworkin etc and I found these pieces interesting if a little sort.
Overall, a good place to start if you want to get the crux of liberal enlightenment philosophy without delving into the established works of the likes of Mill, Kant, Hume etc.
August 6, 2012
I had high hopes for this book, as civil liberties and enlightenment values are both of interest to me. Unfortunately, the book was much less a clear defense of civil liberties than it was a repetition of the same few key quotes again and again as if that make the conclusion clear. Furthermore, the criticisms included of the book of the pre-existing work of others (who take the opposing positions) are best described as the author attacking straw-man versions of each opposing argument being presented. A real let-down.
March 1, 2017
An intriguing and enlightening, but not compelling, collection of short essays which attempt to defend the values of Liberty. Grayling, however, is at times superficial in his insight and offers little in terms of practical solutions or root causes to the corrosive and divisive problems of the modern West.
September 14, 2017
I read this alongside Grayling's Towards The Light. The format of this (a collection of short essays) suits him better.
It's a nice introduction, touching on many areas and responding to many views on the topic but never really going into too much depth.
It's a nice introduction, touching on many areas and responding to many views on the topic but never really going into too much depth.
June 5, 2018
The author makes a number of excellent and highly important points that I very much agree with, but he does have an unfortunate tendency to harp on and on about some things (case in point, the biometric ID thing) without really offering anything new on the subject each time it comes up again.
August 5, 2013
Im enjoying reading his essays. I have not read any of his longer work as yet but its next on the list.
December 14, 2013
It is right to be concerned with attacks on Civil Liberties. However I think the author didn't really shown how much better informed we are thanks to the technology and globalisation, how much more opportunities we have to express our opinions to the whole world and to listen to opinions of others. The feeling of interdependence and interconnection (one small world!) does helps to promote the Enlightenment values by itself.
May 2, 2025
This is another one of those books that I think would benefit from a new edition, but because it's stood the test of time rather than it no longer being fit for purpose. Though the normalisation of censorial attitudes is a problem that Grayling addresses, in contrast to the modern hand-wringing about cancel culture, Grayling correctly identifies the biggest threat as coming from state overreach, and, importantly, the way justifications of such overreach have become accepted. The results of fear of crime and terrorism that took hold during the Bush administration have reached an ugly conclusion with the modern Trump administration illegally detaining people on the pretence of national security and decrying those who respect legal and liberal precedent as traitors. Grayling draws comparisons between the temporary wartime restrictions to the ones that became indefinite fixtures during the ambiguously defined 'War on Terror', setting the stage for people to become convinced that everything they hold dear is constantly under siege from without, something the unscrupulous use to destroy their rights from within. These are the anti-Enlightenment forces that are most pertinent for us today, Islamist fundamentalism being more of a side show (at least in Western countries) and Grayling identifies this very well.
The second part of the book was stronger than the first. The first is very much Grayling's usual furore, and not bad per se, but it does mean that the important ideas he discusses are left without all of the dissection necessary. Perhaps the philosopher's role should be to give us better questions than firm answers, but given Grayling wasn't shy to opine very firmly on certain matters, it seems to me he should have gone further. In his later book 'Democracy and Its Crisis' he gives certain practical solutions to making representative democracy work better, so I think this book could have definitely done with his views on how best to combat terrorism without resorting to suspending due process, engaging in endless wars abroad, and turning the country into a surveillance state.
However, as said, the second part, dealing with specific commentators and their opinions, was definitely the strongest, where Grayling puts his sharp analytical skills to the best use. His skewering of John Gray's myopic and Orientalist pessimism was welcomed, and his careful analysis of the essentialising risks of Roger Scruton's traditionalism has, in my view, heavily stood the test of time, and my guess is that in the modern day he'd be likely to go after the likes of Jordan Peterson and Douglas Murray. Also pertinent was his criticism of Slavoj Zizek's approach to activism, and attempt to divide liberals and leftists when the opposite is needed (and I do believe in recent years Zizek has got a bit better about that).
Anyway, especially now, I think this is a useful read, and for anyone wanting to read a serious, sober piece about Enlightenment values in the age of holy terror WITHOUT going down the neoconservative route, I highly recommend this.
The second part of the book was stronger than the first. The first is very much Grayling's usual furore, and not bad per se, but it does mean that the important ideas he discusses are left without all of the dissection necessary. Perhaps the philosopher's role should be to give us better questions than firm answers, but given Grayling wasn't shy to opine very firmly on certain matters, it seems to me he should have gone further. In his later book 'Democracy and Its Crisis' he gives certain practical solutions to making representative democracy work better, so I think this book could have definitely done with his views on how best to combat terrorism without resorting to suspending due process, engaging in endless wars abroad, and turning the country into a surveillance state.
However, as said, the second part, dealing with specific commentators and their opinions, was definitely the strongest, where Grayling puts his sharp analytical skills to the best use. His skewering of John Gray's myopic and Orientalist pessimism was welcomed, and his careful analysis of the essentialising risks of Roger Scruton's traditionalism has, in my view, heavily stood the test of time, and my guess is that in the modern day he'd be likely to go after the likes of Jordan Peterson and Douglas Murray. Also pertinent was his criticism of Slavoj Zizek's approach to activism, and attempt to divide liberals and leftists when the opposite is needed (and I do believe in recent years Zizek has got a bit better about that).
Anyway, especially now, I think this is a useful read, and for anyone wanting to read a serious, sober piece about Enlightenment values in the age of holy terror WITHOUT going down the neoconservative route, I highly recommend this.
May 27, 2023
good but kinda repetitive
June 4, 2023
Each chapter requires retrospection about how the introduction of security measures has put our identity and freedom at risk. I love this book and would like to read it again.
August 2, 2021
The author is concerned about the loss of liberties due to government legislation in response to the war on terror.
April 7, 2014
Should be required reading for every US politician before they are allowed to legislate.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews