søndag den 22. februar 2009

Present the evidence

On the third walk “Present the evidence” we visited the courts in Copenhagen together with our host for the day, the jurist Thomas Bugge. The idea was to have a kind of hearing, in which the participants in the walk would be able to ask questions about the effects of the anti-terror package. To what degree do the courts have an independent role, and how did the three-fold division of powers in Denmark function historically and how does it function today?


Meeting-point: In front of Copenhagen City Court, Nytorv 25, Copenhagen K.



At the City Court we reviewed the definition of terror. In several ways the definition is unclear, which can lead to arbitrary reactions and the possibility of political misuse.


The terror packages opened the possibility of telelogging, sniffer programmes, secret home searches, etc., all of which violate the individual’s right to privacy. These measures are subject to judicial control. But figures from 2006 show that of 3572 requests the courts acceded to 3477. This means that the police were given the go-ahead by the courts in 97.9 percent of the cases. At the same time it must be concluded that the increased powers given to the police and the Danish Security and Intelligence Service, PET, which were motivated by anti-terror considerations, are being extensively used in cases not related to terror.



At the High Court we discussed, among other things, how the terror legislation has affected the status of aliens. One of the changes makes it easier to expel persons from Denmark without recourse to the courts. This can be done by the Danish Security and Intelligence Service recommending to the minister of justice that a person should be expelled, after which the minister of justice recommends expulsion to the minister for integration, who makes the decision.


The Tunisian Case is an example of a case in which no evidence was presented. PET chose to keep its evidence secret in order to “protect its sources and partners". Thus it has become possible in Denmark to deprive people of their fundamental rights and freedom without having to present evidence in open court.



At the Supreme Court we discussed the role of the courts and the legal rights of the individual more generally. The courts do not seem to be curbing the increased powers to encroach on the privacy of the individual. The balance between the freedom of the individual and the State’s power to control and penalise seems to have been shifted. With unclear and comprehensive definitions of terror, civil disobedience may come under the terror legislation, thereby limiting the individual’s possibilities of acting politically and with adverse effects on the democratic life of the country.

søndag den 15. februar 2009

Intelligence

The second walk “Intelligence” for Os Dem Demos [Us Them Demos] takes its point of departure in the streets of Copenhagen, in which there is already camera surveillance. We wish to look at the surveillance culture as something both concrete and something we imagine, and at how it affects our action space. We suggest that participants should wear an eye patch as a metaphor for the camera’s ’one-eyedness’ and also to make us visible as suspicious types in the street scene. Birgitte Kofoed Olsen, jurist and vice-director of the Institute for Human Rights, was our guide.

Meeting-point: The stairs in front of Copenhagen City Hall, on City Hall Square.

The walk started in Strøget, Copenhagen’s main pedestrian street. In connection with the planned installation of 200 CCTV cameras along Strøget and in the centre of Copenhagen Deputy Assistant Commissioner Michael Agerbæk says: "This is a completely new world for Copenhagen Police, and this is only the first step. It’s impossible to say where it will end."

Birgitte Kofoed Olsen described the extent of CCTV surveillance in Denmark. There are 300,000 surveillance cameras in use, and security firms are now putting up 50,000 cameras a year.

In 2007 the law on CCTV surveillance was amended. Shops, banks and discotheques are now permitted to monitor facades up to a distance of 10-15 meters, which in the pedestrian street corresponds to the entire street and everybody using it.

The High Court of Eastern Denmark: If the police and the Danish Security and Intelligence Service want to have data on who we have talked, mailed or texted with, that requires a court order. But with regard to where we fly, what we borrow at the library and the content of most official registers, the Service can get the information without a court order.

The Danish Data Protection Agency is the authority set up to ensure that the Danish Data Protection Act is complied with. The Agency is also the authority that handles complaints. Previously CCTV surveillance had to be approved by the Agency. That is no longer the case.

Nørreport Station: the platforms are under surveillance and so are the S-trains. The cameras at the station are linked to a surveillance centre in Esbjerg on the west coast of Jutland.

lørdag den 14. februar 2009

The architecture of anti-terror

In connection with the exhibition ”Os Dem Demos” [Us Them Demos] Walking Distance is arranging 3 walks inspired by the anti-terror packages and their relation to the judicial, the legislative and the executive powers. We shall confront the anti-terror packages and the authorities by placing ourselves in public spaces – visible, vulnerable and questioning. We wish to raise questions about the consequences that the legislation involves for our freedom of action and our legal rights as citizens and artists.

Meeting-point: In front of Christiansborg Palace Chapel.


On the first “The architecture of anti-terror” tour, which took place by bus, we looked at the administrative authorities involved in carrying out the anti-terror legislation. These include the Danish Immigration Service, the Danish Security and Intelligence Service and other authorities charged with implementing the anti-terror packages. About 50 people participated in the tour. Architect Merete Ahnfeldt-Mollerup was the guide together with Nis Rømer.



Christiansborg was the starting-point for the bus tour. In reaction to 9/11 a majority in the Folketing enacted the anti-terror package in 2002 and later adopted a number of additional provisions in 2006. The anti-terror packages gave expanded powers to the Danish Security and Intelligence Service and the Police in particular, but at the same time it also introduced limitations in the individual citizen’s civil rights.

Architectonically Christiansborg was already outdated when it was built. Rather than expressing the democratic ideas of the day, the architecture reflects the institution of absolute monarchy that the introduction of democracy was designed to break with.



The Supreme Court. It is remarkable that here the threefold division between the legislative, the judicial and the executive powers is cancelled out by the architecture. The home of the Supreme Court is physically attached to Christiansborg. In Denmark there is no other kind of constitutional court, which means that the judiciary has only limited possibilities of controlling laws and the legislators and ensuring the citizens their rights.



The High Court of Eastern Denmark was originally built as an opera house and rebuilt as a court in 1919. Here Fighters+Lovers were given a prison sentence of 6 months for supporting FARC and PLFP. The case has now been appealed to the Supreme Court.


Kastellet, the Copenhagen Citadel, is the home of the Danish Defence Intelligence Service. Section 17.1.1 of the Defence Act states: ”In wartime or under other special circumstances the Defence Minister may without a court order introduce measures concerning Section 72 of the Constitution in regard of telephone conversations, mail and other forms of communication.” In other words, the Defence Act permits the Defence Minister ”in wartime or under other special circumstances” to initiate surveillance and phone-tapping of Danish citizens.


The terror fence in Nordhavn was erected in consequence of the new threat picture that emerged after 9/11. The fence extends endlessly and closes off almost the entire area from public access. The terror assessments on which it is based are secret and therefore cannot be publicly challenged.


The USA embassy is one of the places where anti-terror measures have been given their most direct architectonic expression. At what was originally a site that sought to promote openness and freedom, there are now massive anti-terror flower tubs, a fence and cameras. Ugly but secure, as a major German paper wrote of the new American embassy in Berlin.



After a corruption scandal the Refugee Agency was rechristened with the use of Orwellian Newspeak as the Danish Immigration Service. Together with this Service the Danish Security and Intelligence Service can without recourse to the courts reject applicants that they suspect of terror. Architectonically one is struck by the reflecting glass together with the surveillance cameras on the facade. It is said that the walls are so white because of the graffiti and the repeated repainting this has necessitated. Historically this was once one of the poorest districts in Copenhagen.


The area around Glasvej is characterised by potholed asphalt and buildings of only modest quality. The so-called Glasvej Case resulted in sentences for planning terror of 7 and 12 years respectively at Glostrup Court in October 2008. The case has been appealed to the High Court of Eastern Denmark.


The normalisation of terror and anti-terror can be seen reflected in the architecture. The Danish Security and Intelligence Service is situated in a district with one-family houses.


Its HQ could be mistaken for the main office of a computer firm. Mediocre mainstream architecture, perhaps with a slightly higher frequency of window blinds.


We served rolled spicy meat and aquavit in the visitors’ parking lot. Later the police turned up in strength and registered all the participants in the lunch even though nothing illegal was taking place.



The Copenhagen Police Headquarters was the last stop on the tour. The building was designed in neoclassical style by the architect Hack Kampmanm, Aage Rafn and others – a fine example of the architecture of power that doesn’t pretend to be anything but what it is.