We’ve finally been told why – or, rather, been given a reason why – hand luggage restrictions are in place. This comes not from a minister but from an unnamed source at the Department for Transport, via the BBC:

[It is] far easier to detect possibly dangerous items in the type of smaller bag now being allowed to be carried on to aircraft by passengers than larger ones.

Officials showed reporters X-ray pictures of items in a large bag and items in a smaller one.

In the current enhanced security regime, the larger bag, which contained difficult-to-see hand cream, aftershave and shower gel, would have had to be rejected and a time-consuming hand search would have had to be conducted.

The good news is that:

a source has told the BBC the government hopes to increase the size of allowed hand luggage within weeks.

I’m flying in three weeks. Fingers crossed.

Of course, now that I’m protected from liquid bombs and have got over the effect of seeing Snakes on a Plane, I read that my plane could fall apart. C’est la vie.

At the time of the sudden airport security crackdown when all hand luggage was banned, I quipped to friends that we were being prevented from taking on board books deemed dangerous: Nineteen Eighty-Four, Brave New World, that sort of thing. It was satire of the highest order, of course, but with no truth in it.

Until now.

“Is that about terrorism?”, asked the lady that examined my onboard luggage. “Humm, well, it contains mentions of that, but it’s about your former ambassador to Uzbekistan and more about diplomacy”, I replied politely. “Does it have al-Qaida in it?” I looked a bit confused. “What?” – “Well, I have to check this with my manager, the rest of your stuff is fine, though.”

Now you can’t blame the Government for the actions of overly-officious airport security, overworked to the point of thinking that reading the word “terrorism” could prompt a passenger to explode mid-flight; you can, however, blame them for creating the climate of paranoia that foments this. (Via.)

While on our walk on Sunday, Nick recommended that I read Nineteen Eighty-Four. I really should have done that a long time ago but I have various Orwell issues dating from school (Animal Farm was a set text) that have got in the way. Now more than ever it seems worth a go, so I’ve put those aside and started reading…

One of the worst things an adult could say to me when I was a kid was “Because I said so.” It’s a refusal to engage, a lazy response to inquisitiveness, a wasted opportunity to share knowledge.

It’s all too easy from a position of authority for a teacher to tell a pupil (hypothetically) “Don’t run in the corridor,” and when asked why reply, “Because I said so.” It appears to be a demonstration of authority, but rather than instilling respect for authority it engenders distrust – if you’ve really got a good reason, why won’t you share it? It’s also unhelpful in the long term: the pupil stops running in the corridor, but falls and hurts himself outside because it wasn’t explained that the risk of tripping and hurting himself was the reason not to do it.

It is too tempting for the Government, at a time of national crisis (as decreed by them), to disengage with the public. Why is the rucksack I’ve taken into the cabin on countless domestic flights now considered too large? Because they said so. Not knowing the reason doesn’t mean I’ll try to flout the rule – that would be futile – but it means I trust them less. If the Government won’t trust the public with simple information, why should we trust them with our security – with our lives? If the answer would compromise national security, then that itself is an acceptable answer. If the answer is that smaller bags can be searched more quickly to avoid delays, then why not tell us? If the answer is that airport X-ray machines can’t cope with larger bags, we have a right to question whether they were coping before the latest change.

I don’t doubt that there really was a plot by extremists to blow up aeroplanes on trans-Atlantic flights. Do I think the terrorists would have been successful if the security services hadn’t uncovered the plan? I don’t know. Should airport security measures have been tightened a long time ago if there was a real threat? Quite possibly. Am I prepared to place my trust in the Government to take the tough decisions to protect us? Of course not. I don’t trust them to reform local taxation; I don’t trust them to run our schools; I don’t trust them not to give political favours in return for party loans and donations; why on Earth would I trust them to make me safe?

We shouldn’t feel the need to back off questioning the Government just because it’s a “time of unity”. Governments love the concept of unity because it absolves them of the need to explain themselves. Were we not united before? Those of us who absolutely oppose murderous terrorism aren’t any less united in that opposition because a plot was foiled. If this really is a time of national crisis requiring political unity, Labour need to do what I’ve seen suggested on another blog (I can’t remember where): give up some power and form a plural government of national unity. If the War on Terror is a real war, act like it.

Those of us who believe in protecting our freedoms aren’t going to water down those beliefs just because the threat level was raised; that’s the point of having principles. If we suspend our disbelief for the duration of a threat, who decides when that threat has passed (or is sufficiently familiar that we are desensitised) that we are allowed to ask questions once more?

I’m a Liberal Democrat. We believe in questioning authority. That’s the responsiblity of society in a democracy. If we’re prepared to let the government of the day act without checks and balances, we don’t deserve our democratic rights. At a time when the Government talks about “balancing freedoms with security”, we don’t need to be less vigilant, we need to be more so. We’re Liberal Democrats. We’re the unfashionable, inquisitive, geeky kid who shouldn’t put up with “Because I said so.”