42 Days and the Threat to our Liberty

[Queso]

Ex-Prime Minister John Major yesterday nearly summarised perfectly* my feelings regarding the current Government's push to increase the number of days suspects can be held in in the UK without charge to a beyond-ridiculous 42 days. The following article was published in The Times. Wordy, but worth a read:-

42-day detention: the threat to our liberty

The Government's plan is simply part of an assault on our ancient rights

John Major

The Government's legislation to permit 42 days pre-charge detention brings to the fore the wider question of civil liberties. In their response to the security threat ministers have dragged us ever closer to a society in which ancient rights are seriously damaged. I doubt this is the Government's intention, but it is the effect. It began with Iraq.

The invasion of Iraq was justified by overegging the threat of Saddam Hussein's non-existent weapons of mass destruction - perhaps that error was genuine.

But the case for war was embellished by linking the Iraqi regime to the 9/11 attacks on New York - for which there is not one shred of evidence. As we moved towards war, that misinformation was compounded by the implication that Saddam's Iraq was a clear and present danger to the United Kingdom, which plainly it was not.

These actions damaged our reputation overseas. And, at home - on the back of the threat of terror and two serious incidents in London - they foreshadowed a political climate in which civil liberties are slowly being sacrificed.

We now know that, despite repeated denials, our Government was complicit in rendition, or - to put it in plain terms - the transfer of suspects out of civilised jurisdiction to a place where they could be held without charge for a lengthy period.

Although the intention was presumably to garner information, such action is hardly in the spirit of the nation that gave the world Magna Carta, or the Parliament that gave it habeas corpus.

I don't believe that sacrifice of due process can be justified. If we are seen to defend our own values in a manner that does violence to them, then we run the risk of losing those values. Even worse, if our own standards fall, it will serve to recruit terrorists more effectively than their own propaganda could ever hope to.

That is no longer theoretical: we now have home-grown terrorists - born in Britain, not in Waziristan. Will they be encouraged or discouraged to rally to militancy if we bypass the sober rituals of law with which we are familiar?

The Government has introduced measures to protect against terrorism. These go beyond anything contemplated when Britain faced far more regular - and no less violent - assaults from the IRA. The justification of these has sometimes come close to scare-mongering.

After terrorist attacks on London, Parliament doubled the time that suspects could be held without charge from 14 days to 28 days. Probably, that was justified. But soon Parliament will be asked to increase detention without charge to 42 days. To appease opposition, the Government is cobbling together face-saving compromises. If the measure is passed, it will be a pyrrhic victory that owes more to political survival than principle. Even so, it is hard to justify: pre-charge detention in Canada is 24 hours; South Africa, Germany, New Zealand and America 48 hours; Russia 5 days; and Turkey 7½ days.

There is no proof that an extended period of 42 days would have prevented past atrocities. There is no evidence it will prevent future atrocities. No example has yet been given of why the police need more than 28 days to frame a charge. This is a slippery slope. Assertions that it “might be useful” simply will not do. If we are to curtail the liberty of the individual, we must have more certainty than that.

But it is not only the case for 42 days detention that is bogus. So is the case for identity cards. They were to be voluntary. Now it is clear that they will be compulsory. Yet the Government has admitted that such cards would not have stopped the London bombers. Nor will they cut illegal immigration, since asylum-seekers have been obliged to carry ID cards for nearly eight years. Nor will they have any real impact on benefits fraud, as this is typically caused by misrepresentation of financial resources rather than by identity.

The Government has been saying, in a catchy, misleading piece of spin: “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.” This is a demagogue's trick. We do have something to fear - the total loss of privacy to an intrusive state with authoritarian tendencies.

This is not a United Kingdom that I recognise and Parliament should not accept it.

Nor do I believe that anyone can defend another government innovation: a national identity register containing the DNA of tens of thousands of people who have never been charged with an offence. Under present legislation, DNA can be retained permanently for even minor misdemeanours, such as being drunk. A total of more than four million samples are already on the UK database - far more than in any other country. This includes tens of thousands of children, and a disproportionate number of black men. If this is accepted, it will one day go farther. This cannot be right: for me, it is all uncomfortably authoritarian.

So is a society in which the right to personal privacy is downgraded. These days a police superintendent can authorise bugging in public places. A chief constable can authorise bugging our homes or cars.

The Home Secretary can approve telephone tapping and the interception of our letters and e-mails. All of this is legal under an Act passed by the Labour Government. None of this requires - as it should - the sanction of a High Court Judge. Francis Pym once spoke of the democratic deficit of any government having too large a majority. He was right. In a Parliament with a more balanced representation, the undermining of personal privacy, lengthy detention before charge, identity cards and a DNA register would have never been passed.

I understand - and sympathise with - the complex dilemmas of security and crime that face the Government. But, while I understand their motives, their remedies are too stringent and not wise.

No one can rule out the possibility of another atrocity - but a free and open society is worth a certain amount of risk. A siege society is alien to our core instincts and - once in place - will be difficult to dismantle. It is a road down which we should not go.

The UK Parliament votes on whether to further remove human rights from the people of this country in the name of security on Wednesday.


* I disagree without doubt that even raising to 28 days was justified.

[skunk]

John Major was seriously underrated.

[Much Ado]

* I disagree without doubt that even raising to 28 days was justified.

Out of interest, what would you have as the limit, and why?

[Queso]

Out of interest, what would you have as the limit, and why?
Along with Shami Chakrabarti, the director of human rights group Liberty, I believe that the ABSOLUTE maximum should be seven days.

Under the current Blair/Brown Government there was been a steady erosion of personal liberty and the right to protest. When protesting pensioners are arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act it proves that we should be extremely reluctant to give either the Government or the Police more powers, since they have been proven to happily abuse those powers given the opportunity. Internet file sharers are even being prosecuted under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, another piece of Blair genius supposedly designed to combat terrorism.

Hundreds of years of hard-fought civil rights are being flushed away by a weak Government desperate to appear strong on something.

[Much Ado]

Along with Shami Chakrabarti, the director of human rights group Liberty, I believe that the ABSOLUTE maximum should be seven days.

Yes, she was on QT last night but seemed a little uncertain as to her choice of limit. I think it's an interesting debate- how exactly do we come up with the right number of days to balance personal liberty vs public security?

Certainly 42 days is too much for political brownie-points, I'll grant.

[skunk]

I'd be interested to hear how long it usually takes to produce the evidence necessary to charge a suspect. If the Canadians can do it in 24 hours, I'd think that we could too. If not, then maybe the arrests are premature.

[JG271]

I believe it is the civil contingencies act that can, in extreme situations, extend the current time by 30 days anyway?

I don't think we are going to have a need to hold someone for 42 days without charge. Its another Government 'Insurance Policy' as they say, but as was pointed out on question time on thursday night, so was the Iraq war as the article states.

I agree with this article, and the views of Shami Chakrabarti and the Liberal democrats on this issue; a week is long enough. I have faith in the police that if such an event arrises they can bring a charge on the suspect in that time.

[skunk]

I think a week is long enough. I have faith in the police that if such an event arrises they can bring a charge on the suspect.If the USA can do it in 48 hours, why would we need a week?

[Queso]

If the USA can do it in 48 hours, why would we need a week?
Sadly they don't only take 48 hours though. The suspect simply disappears off to the Caribbean where US law no longer applies....


...apparently.

However, I totally agree. What is it with the UK security services that mean they need 21x the amount of time to gather evidence that their German or South African counterparts do? Are our people really that bad at their jobs? :confused:

[Cromulent]

John Major was seriously underrated.

The older I get the more I agree with this oddly enough.

I think I'm turning into a Tory. :eek:

[Queso]

The older I get the more I agree with this oddly enough.

I think I'm turning into a Tory. :eek:
Don't panic. More than likely it's just the same New Labour fatigue virtually everyone in the country is now feeling. Once we have a Tory Government you'll soon start hating them again.

[JG271]

Perhaps the procedure for making a charge is different here and therefore takes longer for all the paperwork and legal issues.
Maybe there is greater scrutiny on the police here than in other countries, so the police must be careful to have followed the right procedures.
I don't know, i'm not an expert, but this may be reasons for a week to be justified.

[iJohnHenry]

Speaking for Canada, 24 hours is not enough in this day and age. How can you get DNA results in that short a time??

From the other side, of presumptive guilt, at least when our courts let them loose they will have served, hopefully, 42 days. :rolleyes:

[JG271]

MI5 has not asked for 42 day detention, it now appears. The police have, but they haven't pushed this issue like they quite often do; The EU is against the measure. It would seem that most people are against the government on this one!

[Queso]

MI5 has not asked for 42 day detention, it now appears. The police have, but they haven't pushed this issue like they quite often do; The EU is against the measure. It would seem that most people are against the government on this one!
Everyone with the exception of Westminster point scorers. Why does this not surprise me? :rolleyes:

[BoyBach]

I'm not concerned about the proposed extension. Even if the Labour Whips manage to coerce enough support to get it through the Commons, the Lords will not support it.

(I sometimes wonder what is happening in politics when a lefty, liberal like me finds myself thinking that the Conservative Party are talking more sense than the Labour Party. But that's for another thread.)

[Iscariot]

Speaking for Canada, 24 hours is not enough in this day and age. How can you get DNA results in that short a time??

DNA results aren't necessary to press charges.

[djellison]

Making changes to our laws to accommodate terrorist activities, is handing the terrorists a victory.

Sadly, my MP is a spineless Labour gimp who voted yes to an extension to 90 days. He spends more time asking questions about bloody lacrosse than anything else ( http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ is very useful )

Doug

[J@ffa]

MI5 has not asked for 42 day detention, it now appears. The police have, but they haven't pushed this issue like they quite often do; The EU is against the measure. It would seem that most people are against the government on this one!

Unfortunately, the public is as craven as the Government on this one;

A Sunday Telegraph poll last night showed the public firmly behind plans for 42-day detention. Some 65 per cent of those questioned backed Brown's plan, against just 30 per cent who supported Tory leader David Cameron's position of retaining the 28-day limit

[Cromulent]

Unfortunately, the public is as craven as the Government on this one;

Fear is the number one reason to destroy liberty in a society.

Looks like we are letting the terrorists win.

Shame really that no one has realised that even while we are fighting in Iraq / Afghanistan the terrorists are doing more to destroy the liberties of our society at home just by posting a few videos on the web.

[skunk]

I am extremely happy with my MP's voting record.
119222
I can only hope enough Labour MPs exhibit enough spine to resist.

[Much Ado]

I am extremely happy with my MP's voting record.

Wow, that is impressive... It almost restores my faith in British politics.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Fear is the number one reason to destroy liberty in a society.

Looks like we are letting the terrorists win.

Shame really that no one has realised that even while we are fighting in Iraq / Afghanistan the terrorists are doing more to destroy the liberties of our society at home just by posting a few videos on the web.
When govts start running off of fear rather then common sense your lost. The Terrorist win when they start making you act as they do. Hey here is a idea lets treat everyone as a terrorist and hold them forever. BIG BROTHER. UK is lost, you have no freedom or liberty and are running around scared because the morons who run your country was happy to import a islamic society and the problems that come with its extremists.

Here in the U.S. we are loosing our identity because we are importing Mexicans by the millions. At this rate Spanish will become our national language.

2 examples of broken govts who put $$$ first.

Holding people for 42 days with no recall rights or freedom? Communist,Nazi's,Dictatorships all have about the same thing in common meaning the people have no rights.
UK needs a revolution by its people, watch us here in America because we have just started one and it begins with removing these power morons who run govt. Say bye bye to Republicans running anything here in U.S. They wont control any branch of our govt come the next election. Were sick of this FEAR crap the republicans sold.

Lets see first we allow anyone in the country then we take away everyones rights because of this. UK needs to WAKE UP!

[JG271]

Making changes to our laws to accommodate terrorist activities, is handing the terrorists a victory.

Sadly, my MP is a spineless Labour gimp who voted yes to an extension to 90 days. He spends more time asking questions about bloody lacrosse than anything else ( http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ is very useful )


I completely agree.
and yeah, thats a great website, i'm very glad that sort of information is available for all to see.

[Nickygoat]

I am extremely happy with my MP's voting record.
119222
I can only hope enough Labour MPs exhibit enough spine to resist.

Interestingly enough my MP, Gorgeous George, isn't quite as radical as he would like to be portrayed:

Can we swap Skunk? Or can I just live with you? :D

[skunk]

Interestingly enough my MP, Gorgeous George, isn't quite as radical as he would like to be portrayed:

Can we swap Skunk? Or can I just live with you? :DYou can have the sofa-bed.

[Nickygoat]

You can have the sofa-bed.

But only for 6 weeks right?

[skunk]

I'd be surprised if you lasted 6 days... :cool:

[Queso]

But only for 6 weeks right?
It's free for 6 weeks, but after 42 days he'll have to charge you.

[Nickygoat]

It's free for 6 weeks, but after 42 days he'll have to charge you.

I think that's very reasonable. Who, in their right mind, wouldn't agree to 6 weeks free food & accommodation?

Maybe our beloved leader should try promoting it that way instead :rolleyes:

[BoyBach]

Having successfully "bought", I mean won, the Commons vote, (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jun/11/terrorism.uksecurity) how do I go about getting myself arrested and start claiming £3,000 a day in compensation?

Now it's over to the House of Lords for them to uphold our ancient traditions of civil liberty.

[JG271]

Now it's over to the House of Lords for them to uphold our ancient traditions of civil liberty.

Perhaps, but the Lord's power is quite restricted. I'm hoping the European Court of Human Rights will intervene.

[Queso]

The Lords will send this back to the Commons, probably more than once. The DUP have never been my favourite party, and moreso this week following Iris Robinson's religious nutcase comments about some poor gay guy bringing a serious beating on himself for not seeking counselling to become normal, but for them to all vote for this is truly disgusting.

The Labour Party can officially kiss my arse, as can the truly hideous witch that is Ann Widdecombe.

[Macmadant]

In my honest opinion the government should be allowed to detain people if needed to 42 days if it is for the greater good. the 42 day detention period is only used under special conditions anyhow with the home secretary reporting to the house of commons why a suspect needs to be detained for that period of time.
People who are innocent will be released within days if they are clean and have nothing to hide, so i really don't see the problem people have with this, i'm sure if you lost a relative or an arm and leg in the 7/7 bombings your opinion would be dramatically changed.
The fact is a poll by the times showed that the public supported and backed the government on this around 68% i think

[Queso]

In my honest opinion the government should be allowed to detain people if needed to 42 days if it is for the greater good. the 42 day detention period is only used under special conditions anyhow with the home secretary reporting to the house of commons why a suspect needs to be detained for that period of time.
People who are innocent will be released within days if they are clean and have nothing to hide, so i really don't see the problem people have with this, i'm sure if you lost a relative or an arm and leg in the 7/7 bombings your opinion would be dramatically changed.
The fact is a poll by the times showed that the public supported and backed the government on this around 68% i think
Internment doesn't work. Just ask Bobby Sands. This government is systematically destroying the rights of people in this country, with invasion after invasion into our personal lives, the removal of rights to protest in places they might have to deal with us, and ever increasing detention periods of anyone they believe to be a threat. I couldn't give a flying **** if 68% of the British public (so 68% that have never read Orwell I'm guessing) currently think this is a good measure. That 68% haven't just haven't worked out why they're wrong yet.

And 42 days wouldn't have prevented 7/7. Don't believe the ********.

[Macmadant]

Internment doesn't work. Just ask Bobby Sands. This government is systematically destroying the rights of people in this country, with invasion after invasion into our personal lives, the removal of rights to protest in places they might have to deal with us, and ever increasing detention periods of anyone they believe to be a threat. I couldn't give a flying **** if 68% of the British public (so 68% that have never read Orwell I'm guessing) currently think this is a good measure. That 68% haven't just haven't worked out why they're wrong yet.

And 42 days wouldn't have prevented 7/7. Don't believe the ********.

I never said anything about it preventing 7/7 i'm just saying if you were directly affected by it you would have the opposite opinion, orwell's 1984 is a fictional book, he's hardly nostradamus

If you feel that strongly about it, then new zealand and Australia are always open to a people with a qualified skill

[Queso]

I never said anything about it preventing 7/7 i'm just saying if you were directly affected by it you would have the opposite opinion, orwell's 1984 is a fictional book, he's hardly nostradamus

If you feel that strongly about it, then new zealand and Australia are always open to a people with a qualified skill
How about those that are scared of terrorists sodding off to the USA and leaving Britain for those of us that actually enjoy(ed) the protections provided by nearly 800 years of progress in civil rights?

And don't lecture me on the effects of terrorism please. I lost a friend to a terrorist attack in 1999, so have an idea of what those effects are. The Government just threw out the principal established by Magna Carta that we cannot be held without charge for long periods. If you honestly think that once that principle is gone they aren't going to erode the supposed safeguards and extend the offences encompassed by the 42 days then you are being extremely naive.

Orwell may well be fiction right now, but it's becoming more factual every day.

[skunk]

In my honest opinion the government should be allowed to detain people if needed to 42 days if it is for the greater good. the 42 day detention period is only used under special conditions anyhow with the home secretary reporting to the house of commons why a suspect needs to be detained for that period of time.Nobody has yet produced a single example of a case where the proposed extension would have made any difference whatever. Don't you find this odd?
i'm sure if you lost a relative or an arm and leg in the 7/7 bombings your opinion would be dramatically changed.The 7/7 bombings would not have been prevented by this either, so why bring up the subject? I think the maximum period of pre-charge detention should be 24 hours. If Canada can manage it, why can't the UK?

[Nickygoat]

i'm sure if you lost a relative or an arm and leg in the 7/7 bombings your opinion would be dramatically changed.

Actually that's wrong: Rachel North (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6705375.stm), a survivor of 7/7 said:

"If I had died, I would not have wanted the constitution to be shredded on my behalf" and Chris Agwu (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/may/11/july7.uksecurity1), a relative of someone who died said:

Chris Agwu, cousin of Ojara Ikeagwu, 55, from Luton, who died in the Russell Square bombing, agreed. He also added that it would be difficult to balance people's civil liberties with increasing surveillance.

"My strong view is that it wouldn't be possible for a higher level of surveillance to exist without fundamentally changing the way society is, infringing civil liberties to an extent I don't think the public would be prepared for at the moment

You also seem to have missed the bit where the DPP, the former Attorney General, the Chief Law Officer of Scotland and the head of MI5 said it wasn't necessary.

Before you point out that the Chief of the Met was in favour did you read the clause that says the police can request a closed coroner's hearing in the event of national security or public interest, particularly where those cases involve the police or other agents of the state? Menezes being the obvious example that's coming up.

The fact is a poll by the times showed that the public supported and backed the government on this around 68% i think
Polls are meaningless. The questions are framed to provide the answer that you're looking for.

Let's hope the Lords give this a good kicking.

[BoyBach]

Shadow home secretary David Davis has resigned as an MP.

He is to force a by-election in his Haltemprice and Howden constituency which he will fight on the issue of the new 42-day terror detention limit.

Mr Davis told reporters outside the House of Commons he believed his move was a "noble endeavour" to stop the erosion of British civil liberties.

The 59-year-old is one of the best known Tory MPs. He came second to David Cameron for the Tory leadership.

News of his planned resignation came as a complete surprise in Westminster - and speculation is rife about his possible motives.

Conservative sources have told BBC Political Editor Nick Robinson Mr Davis told Mr Cameron of his decision on Wednesday evening.

His by-election campaign would be "personal and not backed by the full resources of the Conservative Party", the source added.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7450627.stm


Who'd have thought that the rightwing David Davis would launch a one-man crusade for our civil liberties? And who'd have thought that I, a leftwing liberal, would support him?


EDIT: The Liberal Democrats are not contesting the by-election, (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jun/12/daviddavis.conservatives1) in effect giving him their support.

EDIT 2: You can read David Davis' resignation speech here. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/12/speeches)

[Jaffa Cake]

Who'd have thought that the rightwing David Davis would launch a one-man crusade for our civil liberties? And who'd have thought that I, a leftwing liberal, would support him?I'd be slightly more impressed if his seat wasn't such a safe one – and that's even before the Lib Dems opted not to put a candidate forward.

[BoyBach]

I'd be slightly more impressed if his seat wasn't such a safe one – and that's even before the Lib Dems opted not to put a candidate forward.


I'd be impressed if some more Labour MP's would grow some balls and do something similar.

I cannot believe that the Labour government that I voted for in 1997 have now become more draconian than some states that we're supposed to despise and that the most outspoken critic, other than Shami Chakrabarti, is the rightwing bulldog Davis.

All of those members of the Labour Party who allowed themselves to bullied and "bought" into supporting the government should be thoroughly, thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

Mr Brown and his supporters like to talk about his "Moral Compass", mine is spinning at this government.

[Macky-Mac]

hmmmm, next thing you know, they'll be wanting to rent space at guantanamo :eek:

[iJohnHenry]

hmmmm, next thing you know, they'll be wanting to rent space at guantanamo :eek:

Do you mean like the Chinese?? :D

[JG271]

If those are his reasons for resigning, why didn't he just stay until the next election, when he would be home secretary and can make a difference? Is this just a publicity stunt, or something else?

[Queso]

If those are his reasons for resigning, why didn't he just stay until the next election, when he would be home secretary and can make a difference? Is this just a publicity stunt, or something else?
My view is that he's probably already regretting doing it. Maybe he thought he could fight the good fight and show the world how someone who believes in civil liberties can overcome the forces of evil represented by the Government. What he hasn't accounted for is that nobody else wants to turn up to the party, which makes him look like a money-wasting fool and the Conservative Party at odds with itself. I really wish he'd discussed this with the party PR people before taking action. They would have told him in a heartbeat how it would be spun by Labour, which might have discouraged him from the whole mess.

It's a major shame. If he does get re-elected he's unlikely to stay in his current front bench position, which means the civil liberties movement have lost an ally who could have made a difference.

[remmy]

But what can you do? The House of Lords if they vote against can be overruled by another Commons vote. You cannot protest unless you have permission.

That vote in my mind was not democratic at all, votes were bought by threats, promises and money. I know that there are deals done and pressure from the party whips but this time it was obscene.

It reminds be a bit of when the vote was passed (by all parties apart from the liberals) and the then Foreign secretary Cook stood down, wish something like this would of happened instead of David Davis.

[Queso]

But what can you do? The House of Lords if they vote against can be overruled by another Commons vote. You cannot protest unless you have permission.
The Lords can send it back twice. The way things are at the moment that may be all it takes before this current ceasefire in the Labour Party collapses in on itself, with even more rebels voting against next time or the time after.

[Lunja]

I don't know if I'm alone on this, but does anyone else feel that politics is getting forgotten about more quickly than ever before?

I sincerely think that despite the 42 detention rule being morally and ethically reprehensible, it will be forgotten about in a few days' time. In my college days, issues would at least be discussed in the common room, but I think that people don't discuss issues to the same depth that they used to.

Are people forgetting about these issues, too lazy to act? Or is this something that only I am feeling?

[remmy]

Since they keep on increasing the amount of time I don't think it will go away. Linked with other things such as the ID cards this thing will not be easily forgotten.

I agree people seem to talk about politics less, I guess its the dumbing down of the news services, or people have to much of comfortable living to be bothered or interested. What does it matter if it does not cost them anything. People come out with the extremely dumb phrase you have nothing to worry if you do nothing wrong which I do believe is a sign of ignorance.

[Lunja]

Since they keep on increasing the amount of time I don't think it will go away. Linked with other things such as the ID cards this thing will not be easily forgotten.

I agree people seem to talk about politics less, I guess its the dumbing down of the news services, or people have to much of comfortable living to be bothered or interested. What does it matter if it does not cost them anything. People come out with the extremely dumb phrase you have nothing to worry if you do nothing wrong which I do believe is a sign of ignorance.

Another thing I find particularly odd is that people argue that civil liberties are being erroded and that privacy is being invaded, but then discuss this on Facebook where they publicly display their likes, dislikes, friends, photos, and even relationship status. I've heard people arguing that there is too much CCTV in the UK, but then go on Google and YouTube, which logs so much personal information that it is disturbing!

[Jaffa Cake]

I've heard people arguing that there is too much CCTV in the UK, but then go on Google and YouTube, which logs so much personal information that it is disturbing!That's a matter of choice, though. If you choose to have personal information out in the public domain, that's your prerogative.

However, with stuff like the CCTV you mention – or ID cards or whatever – you're on there whether you like it or not.

[skunk]

I don't know if I'm alone on this, but does anyone else feel that politics is getting forgotten about more quickly than ever before?Is it surprising when votes on matters of principle can be bought so blatantly? Corruption is so endemic in the body politic that nobody outside the pale of Westminster feels that they have any chance of making a difference. The best intentions are so easily subverted.

[mpw]

42days? Pah, rank amateurs.

In Jersey our Minister for Home Affairs, just increased the time allowed for detention without charge from, what I'd consider a reasonable, 36hrs to... 'indefinite'.

I guess it saves on all those pesky and costly trials :eek:

[skunk]

I guess it saves on all those pesky and costly trials :eek:Certainly saves on those pesky and costly principles. But what can one expect of an unreconstructed feudal fiefdom?

Welcome back, stranger...

[mpw]

...unreconstructed feudal fiefdom?...
We're actually quite democratic really. Just we vote in idiots.

...Welcome back, stranger...
No stranger than when I was last here.

[BoyBach]

A speech made by Rachel North (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/11/civilliberties.haltemprice), a survivor of the 7 July tube bombing, at a debate about liberty.

Three years ago I was on the way to work when a 19-year-old British man detonated a suicide bomb in the carriage I was travelling in, killing 26 innocent people and wounding more than a hundred more. I understand first-hand how terrifying terrorism is. The real aim of the terrorists is not to kill hundreds but to terrify millions – to terrify us so much that we forget who we are and what we stand for and become like frightened children begging only to be kept safe. To use our own nightmares against us and to amplify them through the media's endless feedback loop of fear. But as any parent knows, it is not always possible to keep those you love safe, and a person who is always safe is a person who never knows freedom and who has no life.

Tony Blair once said that the freedom not be to be blown up on the way to work was the most important freedom – and that sounds true, until you unpack it. For no government can keep us safe, even if they watch over us and film us and check our emails and internet use and hold our most intimate data and fill hundreds of prison cells with people who are merely suspected of, but not charged with, any crime.

When terrorists attack us, they try to divide us. They want a panicked reaction and a divisive, draconian response. It plays into their propaganda machine and by deeming them our terrible enemies against whom we must wage war, we dignify and glorify their hateful cause.

But what I learned on July 7 2005 was that we are each other's best security. We are the guardians of each other's liberties. I learned this when the bomb exploded and on each carriage of the train, trapped underground in the terrifying darkness and screaming, women and men took each other's hands and comforted and calmed each other, shared water and passed around tissues, while other women and men ran to rescue the injured. Further horror and injury was prevented by people's calm and altruistic response. And in the darkness, you could not know if the person who reached to touch you was female or male, or what race or religion they were. Just a stranger in the dark on whom your own sanity and survival depended. I have held on to that lesson ever since.

I expect terrorists to attack our way of life and to try to use fear to divide us and change our behaviour. I do not expect our government to do the same, nor us to collude in giving up our ancient liberties and thus to do the terrorists' work for them.

I have no empathy for terrorists and I will cheer loud and long when one is convicted by a jury of his peers and locked up for a long time. But it is not right to support laws where people merely suspected of terrorism should be locked up for 42 days and nights without being charged with any crime. More than half those arrested for terrorism so far have been found to be entirely innocent, while terrorism laws have been used to harass ordinary people: poets and protesters, chefs and pensioners, students and parents and priests. People like you and me.

The director of public prosecutions, the former director general of M15, the former attorney general and many senior police, as well as numerous others whose job it has been to protect us and prosecute those who mean us harm, all say that 42 days is not needed nor is it workable, and I support them. How can I not?

Sometimes an issue is so important that it transcends politics and party lines. We have a choice: whether we focus on our fears or our freedoms. We must defy the terrorists by standing together, strong in what we know ourselves to be, looking at what unites us. We must not tolerate political posturing and base attempts to cajole and frighten us. I pray that we have the courage to stand up for the freedoms our enemies want to destroy and older generations died to protect; whatever our party politics, whatever our background, we must say that our liberty is our security and our freedoms the key to unlock our fears and let us breathe and live and love and work as we want to.

I am not a Tory, but I am passionate about the debate that is playing out in David Davis's constituency and all over the UK. They say if you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything, and I am glad to stand shoulder to shoulder with people from all across the political spectrum, knowing that freedom is something worth standing for, worth fighting for, worth dying for.

[és:]

My hat is off to you, Rachel North.

[BoyBach]

Peers throw out 42-day detention

Peers have rejected the government's controversial plans to extend the limit on pre-charge detention of terror suspects by a large majority.

The House of Lords voted to keep the limit at 28 days by 309 votes to 118 - a majority of 191.

The government is to make a statement in the Commons at 2030 BST.

Last week ministers said the plan would return to MPs if defeated but there has been speculation it might be dropped rather than risk a Commons defeat.

BBC political correspondent Iain Watson said Monday's result was a much bigger defeat than had been expected.

'Very difficult'

Last week ministers said the plan would return to MPs if defeated but there has been speculation it might be dropped rather than risk a Commons defeat.

In June it passed through the Commons by only nine votes, with the help of DUP MPs.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith is expected to make a statement in the next hour in the Commons.

Shadow security minister Baroness Neville Jones, who had described the 42-day plan as "unworkable" and "constitutionally worrying", told the BBC later there had been "very heavy abstentions on the government benches".

"This has been a very big majority against," she said.

"It must make it very difficult for the government to proceed with this piece of legislation and send it back to the Commons as if nothing had happened."

...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7666022.stm


Hopefully, with the government having other things to worry about at the moment, they'll let this terrible legislation die.

[BoyBach]

A good day for politics!

Ministers drop 42-day detention

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has said that plans to extend terror detention to 42 days will be dropped from the Counter-Terrorism Bill.

It follows a heavy defeat for the government in the House of Lords, which threw out the plan by 309 votes to 118.

Ms Smith said instead the measure would be in a separate piece of legislation to be brought to Parliament if needed.

The Tories said the new legislation was "bizarre", the Lib Dems said Ms Smith was in "humiliating retreat".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7668477.stm

[JG271]

Excellent news! I'm glad the government didn't deystroy their last thread of credibility by using the parliament act to force this one through.

House of Lords, you aren't so useless after all!

[Queso]

Excellent news, but we still need to get the ridiculous ID card nonsense dropped, as well as that über-database the security services are attempting to compile on each and every one of us.

This one is a long way from being won yet...

[és:]

It's great news. I also agree with Queso about the ID cards.

[JG271]

Excellent news, but we still need to get the ridiculous ID card nonsense dropped, as well as that über-database the security services are attempting to compile on each and every one of us.

This one is a long way from being won yet...

True. It'll take a long time to reverse the massive damages that the Labour Party have done to our civil liberties, and I'm not sure a conservative government will change all that much.

[Peterkro]

Airline pilots who were to be used as one of the guinea pig groups are none to happy about it:
http://www.silicon.com/publicsector/0,3800010403,39301936,00.htm