Opinion: Magna culpa
Written by Laurence Boyce on 18th June 2008 – 10:40 amThe next person to mention in my presence: Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus, or the “insidious, surreptitious and relentless erosion of fundamental British freedoms,” is surely going to regret it. I have never been more heartily sick and tired of the whole “civil liberties” industry following last week’s events where, after an admittedly unwelcome measure was passed in the House of Commons, a Conservative frontbencher with whom we have virtually nothing in common went off on some vain flight of fancy, and it was somehow deemed inappropriate for Liberal Democrats to oppose him.
Starting from a position of puzzlement over the extent to which civil liberties seem to dominate political discourse, I have now come to see the whole charade as an excuse on the part of self-indulgent and out-of-touch politicians for not talking about the issues that really matter to the electorate. To the ordinary man and woman in the street, freedom is paramount – but it is a freedom which has nothing whatsoever to do with detention without charge, ID cards, CCTV, or any of the other oppressive instruments of the big-brother police state (which doesn’t exist by the way).
The sense in which many people find their freedoms curtailed on an everyday basis is that they are obliged to work long hours each day, maybe with a difficult or cynical employer. That higher food and fuel bills are starting to hurt their ability to hold body and soul together. That they increasingly find themselves facing impossible decisions balancing work, life, and family. What they are less concerned about, I would suggest, is the prospect of being arrested and imprisoned for 42 days without charge, especially if they have done nothing wrong. In fact if they saw a policeman on their patch at all, they might be pleasantly surprised.
But no, to a certain breed of dull-witted politician, Magna Carta is what it’s all about. The level of unthinking inertia is such that they forget – as they drone on about “hard-won freedoms” and “slippery slopes” – that today’s technological era hardly bears comparison with anything that happened in the previous century, never mind in another age altogether. And they don’t come much more unimaginative than the member for Haltemprice and Howden who has now embarked at considerable public expense upon a political stunt that, when the dust has settled, will prove precisely nothing.
Of all the lazy and incoherent things that have been said regarding the forthcoming contest, the most absurd is this notion that we may declare the by-election to be fought over the sole issue of 42 days detention without charge. In truth, there can never be any such thing as a single-issue by-election, for the simple reason that, once elected, the victor will have to face a decision regarding each and every division which comes before Parliament. For example, Saint Martin of Bell voted on a total of 620 divisions during his term of office – strange to tell, they were not all regarding the issue of undeclared donations to MPs.
Logically speaking, if there is one issue the Haltemprice and Howden by-election will not be about, it is 42 days because we’ve just had that vote. Equally spurious is the idea that a tiny region of North-East England can be relied upon to speak for the entire nation on any topic. In fact whatever combination of candidates were to stand in the by-election, and whatever the result may turn out to be, nothing whatsoever will be proved regarding 42 days or civil liberties in general. Yet David Davis would have us all buy into this fantasy contest of him versus the government, when everyone knows perfectly well that Labour (who polled 12.7% last time) cannot possibly win.
So what of Davis’s wider record? On the issue of detention without charge, his record is impeccable (though I’m struggling now to recall any occasion when he has publicly and unequivocally condemned arrangements at Guantanamo Bay – has he ever?). He has also been a stern critic of DNA databases and surveillance cameras (which I happen to think are terrific crime prevention measures!). And of course he has championed the right to trial by jury (now that really is the most stupid idea ever – your whole life hangs in the balance, so why not ask twelve guys who have just stumbled out of the pub to decide your fate?).
Davis voted in favour of the Iraq war (obviously), opposes the Human Rights Act (obviously), and is a strong advocate of the death penalty – what would Shami Chakrabarti think? He is also a staunch defender of free speech . . . well, at least so long as you don’t intend to poke fun at Christianity (he voted to retain blasphemy legislation, both in 2005 and 2008 – make sense of that if you can). And last, but not least, he’s a Conservative! Why on earth are we supporting this guy (because by withholding a candidate, we plainly are in effect supporting Davis whatever the official line may be)?
Nick Clegg has clearly been party to a stitch-up here and, in so doing, has either been exceedingly clever in a way that I can’t quite understand, or has made a grave error of judgement. Because on the face of it, we have rolled over and allowed a man to champion the cause of liberty whose track record should be enough to make any liberal gag. And in attempting to justify our own position, we have been obliged to buy into this highly strained concept of the single-issue parliamentary election which, in my view, is making us look rather foolish and disingenuous.
David Davis is just about the last person I would choose to defend my liberties, and we should never have given him a pass to set up his stall as self-styled freedom-fighter on behalf of the nation. In the absence of any credible Liberal Democrat candidate, I shall be backing Miss Great Britain for Haltemprice and Howden – I hear she has some terrific . . . erm . . . policies. But I’m afraid that the former shadow Home Secretary simply doesn’t stack up.
* Laurence Boyce is a Lib Dem member and occasional contributor to Lib Dem Voice.
Posted in Op-eds
18th June 2008 at 11:09 am
Sorry to be a pedant but can people stop saying parts of Yorkshire are part of the North East of England - they are not. They are part of Yorkshire, which is a seperate region. The next southerner who says this to me is surely going to regret it!
I think this argument about the by-election call by Nisk Clegg is silly. He’s made the decision, it was a hard one to make but it’s been made. Leaders have to make quick decisions sometimes and we need to back them unless they are truly terrible decisions. This by-election wouldn’t of happened if Nick had decided to oppose Davies. Now one of the very few competant Tory front benchers is in the political wilderness. Hopefully at the very least this by-election will force camerons hand and make sure that he has to stand firm on 42 days. In addition any election where the Suns views can be challenged has to be a good thing.
Agree with your points about civil liberties being a wider agenda than just 42 days, ID cards etc but these tradiitonal issues do matter a lot, especially to people who are victiims to these new laws, which are often used well outside their original intended remit.
18th June 2008 at 11:11 am
Brilliant Laurence, brilliant.
Without even mentioning that the Magna Carta was in fact a robber bully barons’ charter under which no man (read no baron) should be held etc against the law of the land. So under the MC 42-days detention would be just fine if the law the robber baron’s themselves passed or rubber stamped allowed it.
Oubliette anyone? Good King Alfred was more of a canny lawmaker than the combined toffs and gangsters of Runnymede ever were.
Many people are in fact against 42 days detention without trial but as you say it is way down our shopping list of freedoms, somewhere with the detail of the Lisbon treaty in the broad population’s priorities. And Davis is a right wing T***, that’s Tory of course.
It’s a stunt and a farce. Davis is a menace to liberalism. Clegg was wrong. But Labour are now right to ignore the by-election IMO. Particularly given the 12.7% return - in a good year.
18th June 2008 at 11:39 am
Yes, how dare we allow somebody else to stand up for liberty? We ought to start a campaign: if you’re not a Lib Dem, you should be opposed to liberty.
Bah.
18th June 2008 at 11:40 am
Whenever non-lawyers like LB pontificate about human rights and civil liberties the result is invariably muddle.
When we talk about “human rights” and “civil liberties” what we usually mean are limitations placed upon the ability of the state to interfere with idividuals. We should not conflate these with oppressive relationships that involve private actors only (eg, employment, families, etc).
A lot of academic research has been undertaken into the effectiveness of trial by jury in the last 30 years, and the conclusion seems to be that juries tend to make rather better decisions that magistrates and judges acting alone. Trial by jury (1) ensures that justice is seen to be done, (2) requires lawyers to make their arguments comprehensible to ordinary people, and (3) reduces the risk of improper pressure.
Juries get it wrong where witnesses lie or are misleading, or where there has been prejudicial reporting by Mr Murdoch’s newspapers. By and large, Lord Devlin was right to describe trial by jury as the “lamp that shows that freedom lives”.
To scoff at the notion that Britain is sliding into a police state is to disregard the facts. ASBOs, curfews, dispersal orders, executive detention, and in the near future, satellite surveillance of motor vehicles, the extension of educational conscription to the age of 18, and the raising of the minimum age for purchase of alcohol to 21. These are not paranoia; they are facts, staring us in the face.
Of course, it is always open to LB to argue that freedom is a bad thing.
18th June 2008 at 11:54 am
Neil Bradbury:
“He’s made the decision, it was a hard one to make but it’s been made. Leaders have to make quick decisions sometimes and we need to back them unless they are truly terrible decisions.”
I asked before whether the leader could, constitutionally, make the decision that the party would not nominate a candidate in a parliamentary by election.
The only answer was from someone who couldn’t see any such provision in the constitution. Nor can I.
Again, I’m surprised to see so little comment on Nick Clegg having instructed the local party not to nominate a candidate when, constitutionally, the decision was not his to make.
18th June 2008 at 11:59 am
Anonymous - if you think this issue is terrible enough to launch a witchhunt against Nick then fine, I don’t. The local party wouldn’t have been allowed not to stand a candidate if the national party wanted to do so (that is a constitutional fact). I haven’t heard anyone in a senior position from the local or regional party opposing this decision.
18th June 2008 at 12:05 pm
Sorry to be a pedant but can people stop saying parts of Yorkshire are part of the North East of England - they are not. They are part of Yorkshire, which is a separate region. The next southerner who says this to me is surely going to regret it!
Sorry Neil. This reminds me of my first ever (regional) Lib Dem conference where we debated at length whether we considered ourselves to live in the “East of England” or “East Anglia” or just “Essex” or “Cambridgeshire” or whatever. It was actually a fascinating discussion.
Brilliant Laurence, brilliant.
Thanks Chris!
Bah.
Thanks Joe!
Juries get it wrong where witnesses lie or are misleading, or where there has been prejudicial reporting by Mr Murdoch’s newspapers.
. . . or when they are playing Sudoku under the table.
18th June 2008 at 12:17 pm
Neil Bradbury
You say you haven’t heard anyone _senior_ from the local party opposing the decision.
All I can say is that you seem to have a very leader-oriented view of decision-making in the party.
And, by the way, nobody’s talking about a “witch hunt”. If you can’t make an argument without using ridiculously melodramatic language, something may be amiss!
18th June 2008 at 12:43 pm
Hmmm, I much prefer your God stuff.
18th June 2008 at 12:49 pm
Yes but most people hate my God stuff, so I have to throw in these occasional efforts on other issues, otherwise I get accused of being boring. Perish the thought!
18th June 2008 at 1:07 pm
This is despicable.
18th June 2008 at 1:07 pm
Sorry Laurence but it just isn’t permitted to vomit on parade.
Trial by Jury? Far better that 12 drunks who’ve just stumbled out of the pub argue out a decision of life or death than to make it dependent on the whim of one who may well have been in the pub with them.
ID cards and surveillance - crime prevention? Surely you’re confused, crime reduction and detection perhaps.
re: single issue by-election and Martin Bell. Politics is a series of interrelated issues informed by founding principles, so the inconsistency you identify doesn’t exist, unless you are transfering your own prejudices onto them.
It’s back to barracks for you.
18th June 2008 at 1:15 pm
Sorry, I forget to mention “ID cards” as an impending restriction on our liberties.
Would LB prefer to be tried by 12 randomly selected jurors or by Goddard, Melford Stephenson or Michael Argyle? Or Judge Jeffries himself?
18th June 2008 at 1:19 pm
I strongly disagree with you Laurence on the liberties take.
Sesenco, whom I often enough have to disgree with, is correct in this instance. Freedoms and Civil Liberties are there to protect the people from an overbearing state.
Detention without charge is the tool of preference for witch hunts and fishing expeditions. Arrest someone you don’t like (e.g. a vocal muslim cleric, or an opposition MP) and you’ve got 28 days… or now 42 days… to legitimately turn over the entire guy’s (or gal’s) life while looking for that nice bit of evidence that will give you the excuse to lock him up. It’s a technique perfected in such sham democracies like the former east Germany, and other Warsaw pact countries.
If you are required to charge someone quickly then it means you must already have the evidence, and if you don’t have any evidence, why are you arresting someone in the first place?
How would you like it Laurence if someone maliciously reported to the police that you were plotting to blow up a church or something (which I strongly doubt you’d ever do) and the police then locked you up for 28/42 days while they figured out if you were really dangerous and capable of that?
28 Days… you’d lose your job; no employer wants to be associated with a terrorist, regardless of if you’re innocent or not. Your community and family and friends might well turn against you, after all there’s no fire without smoke.. and the police obviously must have had their reasons.
Detention without charge is a seriously oppressive tool in the hands of a government that’s on a mission, be it anti-terrorism, anti-crime, anti-goth, anti-rock&roll, anti-semitic or whatever. It gives them the chance to lock up the undesirables, those that don’t fit their ideals, and dig through their lives looking for a means to hurt/eliminate them.
A tool like this is ideal for someone like Mugabe; by the time we’d realise that we’ve elected a sinister government it will be too late to revoke those laws it’s using to oppress it’s opponents and detractors.
Civil liberties must be protected, the population must be protected, not always from the current government, but from all potential future governments. The good and wise governments write laws that protect us from themselves, from their darker natures, and from future less tolerant or more oppressive governments. Poor, short-sighted and/or evil, oppressive governments write laws that remove those safe-guards.
Benjamin Franklin said it best when he remarked that those who would give up a little liberty for a little security would lose both and deserve neither.
Every liberty we remove is a victory for the terrorist we are supposedly protecting ourselves from; they’ve achieved their primary aim; they’ve made us afraid of them; they’ve made us change.
Detention without charge does nothing to protect us from terrorists (it might even give them an extra motivation). Detention without charge won’t stop terrorists blowing us up, so we won’t gain any security, but it will remove a protection we’ve always had against an oppressive state. In other words, it’s a loss all along the line for decent citizens.
18th June 2008 at 1:20 pm
Cllr Bradbury
If we’re really being pedantic, there is no north-east region within the Liberal Democrats. There is a northern region. And there is also no Yorkshire region within the party. There is a region called Yorkshire and the Humber.
And perhaps credit should go to those very locally who have dealt with this professionally, and with dignity and restraint, rather than those outside assuming how they feel locally.
18th June 2008 at 1:24 pm
Ideally, I would like a panel of three judges.
18th June 2008 at 1:28 pm
LB wrote:
“Ideally, I would like a panel of three judges.”
And who would those judges be?
Ah, right. Goddard, Melford Stephenson and Argyle.
18th June 2008 at 1:30 pm
“I shall be backing Miss Great Britain for Haltemprice and Howden – I hear she has some terrific . . . erm . . . policies”
Laurence - you’ve ruined a perfect article by a stupid comment in the final sentence. Miss Great Britain is standing on the basis that there need to be more beautiful women elected to parliament. Yes, quite funny, but only for about 2 seconds. After that you realise that this is actually a really offensive statement that
1. Assumes that all female MPs are ugly. Not true.
2. Women should only be elected to parliament on the basis of their looks.
I can see the joke but it isn’t funny in other words…
18th June 2008 at 1:36 pm
I don’t think I know who those judges are Sesenco, so I’ll assume they are all devil worshippers or worse. Yes, I’ll take them over 12 guys in the pub. Judges, like politicians, have a public record which presumably has led you to single those three out as being particularly bad. Juries on the other hand are accountable to no-one.
Thanks for your response Martin. As usual, I will try to respond to everyone in the fullness of time.
18th June 2008 at 1:45 pm
“If we’re really being pedantic, there is no north-east region within the Liberal Democrats. There is a northern region. And there is also no Yorkshire region within the party. There is a region called Yorkshire and the Humber.”
If I’m being even more pedantic, the article didn’t refer to Liberal Deocratic regional structures, rather the geographic location of Haltemprice and Howden. Just get a bit narked when the two regions generally (not just in Lib Dem circles) get lumped together! And many of us up here in the North East would like to change the name of our regional party but are too busy to do anything about it! Which reminds me, I should really stop wasting my time trying to be the king of pedants - not really my bag!
18th June 2008 at 1:49 pm
I’m starting to wonder whether, when the media interest has died down - which it largely seems to have done already - David Davis is going to be left looking rather silly.
If he ends up trying to have earnest debates about detention without trial in half-empty village halls, accompanied by a motley collection of beauty queens, mad cows and opinionated pub landlords, market traders and anti-politicians - many of whom have decided they are going to ride their own hobby horses rather than his - he could be a very easy target for ridicule.
Given the tabloid press’s fondness for building people up and then knocking them back down, the narrative of the vain, ridiculous Don Quixote figure may become very appealing in a few weeks’ time.
18th June 2008 at 1:52 pm
Laurence would your judges have to be be ‘as sober as a judge’ to qualify for the job?
18th June 2008 at 1:52 pm
“I have never been more heartily sick and tired of the whole “civil liberties” industry”
Laurence, could I ask what it is that draws you to the Lib Dems? You do seem to have more in common with people like Chris Paul than people like Chris Huhne, so I’m just wondering.
18th June 2008 at 1:53 pm
Miss Great Britain is standing on the basis that there need to be more beautiful women elected to Parliament.
Jo, I didn’t even know that was one of her policies. But I have to say it’s a pretty good one. I don’t see why she should mean that the present crop of female MPs are not attractive. She might mean we need more good looking women instead of all the stuffed shirts and grey suits. I would certainly agree with that.
Just at the moment, I can’t think of any really unattractive MPs, and I follow Parliament quite closely. Harriet Harman is easily my favourite on the Labour benches, and there’s plenty of nice ones on our side. I quite like Iris Robinson too, but I don’t think we’d get on . . .
18th June 2008 at 2:01 pm
LB wrote:
“I don’t think I know who those judges are Sesenco, so I’ll assume they are all devil worshippers or worse. Yes, I’ll take them over 12 guys in the pub.”
You will live to regret ever saying that, LB. Those stupid, injudicious words will be thrown back at you for years to come.
“Juries on the other hand are accountable to no-one.”
Balderdash. Juries owe a duty to the court. If they breach their oaths they can be prosecuted (and sometimes are). Highlighting the odd extreme case of a jury getting it wrong is no argument for moving to a much worse system.
So, you have chosen Lord Goddard CJ as your judge. What about your hangman? Albert Pierpoint? (He had a 100% record of getting the drop right. 30 seconds after coming to your cell you were dead.)
18th June 2008 at 2:04 pm
“I can’t think of any really unattractive MPs”
?
18th June 2008 at 2:07 pm
Highlighting the odd extreme case of a jury getting it wrong is no argument for moving to a much worse system.
How do we know that it is only the odd extreme case? There may be hundreds of cases they have screwed up. We have no idea because we have no record of their deliberations.
Give me the three judges any day.
18th June 2008 at 2:13 pm
LB wrote:
“How do we know that it is only the odd extreme case? There may be hundreds of cases they have screwed up. We have no idea because we have no record of their deliberations.”
Ah right. You wouldn’t favour a change in the law to allow bona fide academics to interview jurors? Much better to act in ignorance.
The random selection of 12 jurors pretty much eliminates the possibility of a majority of jurors acting in opposition to their oaths.
18th June 2008 at 2:23 pm
I’d say it is you who is out of touch, Laurence. Food prices and nasty bosses are what real people care about? Give me a break.
We’ve weathered recessions before.
ID cards: the most comprehensive, intrusive system in history.
42 days: unprecedented for an advanced democracy.
CCTV: more than any other country, by a mile.
These are symptomatic of a profound sickness in our society, far worse than being a bit poorer. Many people know this, hence the outpouring of support for David Davies.
Even if you buy the technological defence of mobile phones, bank cards, satnavs, changing society etc, etc, these things are still a complete waste of public money. If we’re going to squander money, let’s build palaces, pyramids or stone heads facing out to sea, and give the archaeologists something nice to look at.
18th June 2008 at 2:29 pm
So basically Laurence seems to be in love with authority.
Authority will protect us from its own abuses is the claim, we have no need to worry seems to be his argument. That is the logic of Gordon Brown and every other paternalistic authoritarian.
As several people have said, civil liberties are there to protect us from authority. True, we have not had many totally outrageous abuses of authority recently, but that’s because we have had some civil liberties.
The abuses of authority can be well meaning, but that doesn’t make them any better.
As for the Magna Carta - its value is mostly symbolic. It is of immense importance for the history of liberalism and constitutional law.
There are many other very important pieces of legislation, but the Magna Carta holds a unique place.
18th June 2008 at 2:41 pm
Tristram Mills wrote:
“So basically Laurence seems to be in love with authority.”
Oh yes. LB is very much in love with authority. He has a blind faith in the competence and integrity of the Police, none of whom ever lies, none of whom has ever been a Freemason (apparently), and whom it should be taboo to criticise.
What breathtaking chutzpah for a guy who brags that he has never heard of three of the most notorious criminal judges of the last 60 years to presume to pronounce upon trial by jury - something he evidently knows next to nothing about!
No-one is claiming that the Magna Carta is a perfect constitutional document. Its symbolic importance lies in the fact that it is the historical starting point for trial by jury.
In the same way, Simon De Monfort is rightly credited with the founding of Parliament, but no-one claims he believed in universal suffrage!
18th June 2008 at 3:08 pm
“42 days: unprecedented for an advanced democracy.”
As is 28 days, but both David Davis and Chris Huhne support that, strangely enough.
“CCTV: more than any other country, by a mile.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but haven’t Lib Dem local authorities been as keen as anyone to install CCTV cameras?
18th June 2008 at 3:12 pm
It would be asking a lot, I think, to expect Lib Dem councils to resist the flirtations of the surveillance industry, without a strong policy to counter this at the centre.
18th June 2008 at 3:40 pm
Some miscellaneous responses . . .
ID cards and surveillance - crime prevention? Surely you’re confused, crime reduction and detection perhaps.
Whatever - crime prevention and detection. However, I’m against ID cards, but in favour of CCTV and DNA databases big time.
I’m starting to wonder whether, when the media interest has died down - which it largely seems to have done already - David Davis is going to be left looking rather silly.
I think he looks exceedingly silly. Could have achieved all he wanted as Home Secretary. Madness.
Laurence, could I ask what it is that draws you to the Lib Dems?
The people mainly. I like you guys! Certainly far more than you like me. But that’s understandable . .
I’d say it is you who is out of touch, Laurence. Food prices and nasty bosses are what real people care about? Give me a break.
I know. It’s always highly risky when one tries to speak up for “ordinary people.” But people really don’t give a stuff about this agenda. All the noise is coming from a small band of activists and politicos, many from the hard right libertarian fruitcake tendency.
Oh yes. LB is very much in love with authority. He has a blind faith in the competence and integrity of the Police, none of whom ever lies, none of whom has ever been a Freemason (apparently), and whom it should be taboo to criticise.
It certainly should be taboo to smear the Police in the manner you occasionally do Sesenco, not least because they are one of the principle guardians of our liberty.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but haven’t Lib Dem local authorities been as keen as anyone to install CCTV cameras?
Yes, there’s loads of them in Cambridge. It’s great!
18th June 2008 at 3:46 pm
Anonymous, I’d have more sympathy with your outbursts if you were less petty in your manner of raising them.
Justification is not the same as preference, so whatever you say about Chris Huhne or CCTV to fail to draw the distinction means you fail to hit your target.
‘28 days’ definitely is preferable to ‘90 days’ and you’ll find nobody here has said otherwise.
Nor does anyone have pathological opposition to CCTV where it can be shown that they are admissible as evidence for court cases, are used as sources for court evidence and not used as a cheap alternative to preventative policing (that most CCTV cameras fail to meet these criteria only reinforces LibDem reasoning).
I think taking anonymous (and not even pseudononymous) sideswipes at your generalised assumption of our policies without starting to investigate any of the specific or individual reasons is both disingenuous and dishonest. If you want to be taken more seriously please will you raise the standard of your interventions.
18th June 2008 at 3:48 pm
LB wrote:
“It certainly should be taboo to smear the Police in the manner you occasionally do Sesenco, not least because they are one of the principle guardians of our liberty.”
I don’t smear the Police, LB. I criticise them when they don’t do their job properly, just as I criticise civil servants, refuse collectors, postmen, etc, etc.
I also know how to spell “principal”.
18th June 2008 at 3:52 pm
Laurence, I disagree that it should be taboo to smear the Police.
The Police should deserve our respect as ‘one of the principle guardians of our liberty’ by living up to our expectations rather than confirming our suspicions.
I’m guessing you don’t remember when Geoff Capes patrolled your manor.
18th June 2008 at 4:06 pm
Orangepan
First of all, please don’t accuse me of “outbursts” when all I’ve done is make two simple statements of fact.
And please don’t accuse me of being “petty”, either. This question of detention without charge is either important, or it’s not. It can’t be important when it suits you and unimportant when you find it inconvenient.
I think you know very well by now that Chris Huhne has not simply said he _prefers_ 28 days to 42 days. He has said that in his judgment 28 days is justified, and he is said that he is “very happy” with 28 days.
To pretend otherwise is - to be blunt - plain dishonest.
18th June 2008 at 4:19 pm
I don’t smear the Police.
Yes you do, because you often attack the Police as a block, instead of making a carefully targeted criticism. But let’s not fall out over it!
18th June 2008 at 4:26 pm
LB wrote:
“Yes you do,”
No I don’t.
18th June 2008 at 4:43 pm
Anonymous, you mean to say you haven’t cropped up in a similar vein on other threads?? That must be my mistake in confusing your handle with others - or are you deliberately trying to avoid accounting for your comments?
No single political question can override all others in significance without detracting from one’s underlying principles, so while detention without charge most definitely is important, please don’t forget there are other related issues at stake which are not addressed by the Bill, such as the flawed reasoning behind the foreign policy choices of this Labour government (not without flaw or not unrelated, but not both).
I find it amusing that you concentrate so heavily on a couple of decontextualised snippets from one prominent individual without motioning in the direction of any qualifying comments, such as the case for sunset clauses.
I also find it highly suspicious that you depend on such absence of evidence as proof for your case; you respond to suggestions of disingenuity with accusations of dishonesty.
So, may I ask, what point of prejudice are you trying to prove the use of such circularity?
Were you more open and were you able to offer more detail you’d make a significantly more credible commentator.
18th June 2008 at 4:52 pm
Yes you do.
18th June 2008 at 5:02 pm
Laurence, if you take the trouble to look further down that thread you will see that I adduce evidence to support what I said. I am referring to the canvass cards in respect of two blocks of Police flats where almost every tick is to be found in the “Conservative” column. You surely do not deny that the vast majority of policemen hold political opinions that are somewhere to the far right of the spectrum?
18th June 2008 at 5:15 pm
Anyone who follows the link will see that you said far more than just the Police are Conservative (which wouldn’t be a crime even if it were true). Look, it really doesn’t matter - I say a lot of rash things too. But the Police are our friends!
18th June 2008 at 5:17 pm
Detention without charge does nothing to protect us from terrorists (it might even give them an extra motivation). Detention without charge won’t stop terrorists blowing us up, so we won’t gain any security, but it will remove a protection we’ve always had against an oppressive state. In other words, it’s a loss all along the line for decent citizens.
Thanks for your reply Martin from which I quote this last paragraph. First off, I’m against 42 days detention without charge. What I’ve picked up is that this measure is unnecessary and was really more about making Labour look tough on terror. That was the line argued my many Labour MPs, most notably Diane Abbott, and I think I’d go along with that.
The trouble with your post as a whole Martin, is that you exaggerate so much. You are not really describing a present reality, more where we’ll end up when we’ve slid all the way down the slippery slope. We haven’t got anything like blanket 42 detention without charge. Instead the thing is completely hedged about with caveats to the extent that some think it is unworkable.
People are not disappearing off our streets in large numbers. This from the BBC crib sheet regarding the present 28 day limit:
“There have been very few detentions which have gone right up to the wire. So far six people have been held close to the 28-day limit. Five of these people were arrested in 2006 in connection with an alleged plot currently before the courts. Two of the five were charged and three released before the deadline. The sixth case of 28 days’ detention involved another suspect arrested and subsequently charged in Manchester in connection with unrelated allegations.”
This seems to suggest that 42 days is unnecessary, but it also shows what tiny numbers we are talking about. Six people, out of whom two are charged with a major terrorist plot (they may of course be innocent), and we all know exactly what is going on. This is hardly Mugabe territory. And the fuss created by this measure shows how difficult, if not impossible, it is going to be to go any further.
I’m against 42 days, and Gordon Brown was foolish to spend so much political capital on this, but it really isn’t the end of the world. Relax!
18th June 2008 at 5:21 pm
Laurence, you use the same argument regarding the churches, but there you come to the opposite conclusion.
Just because significant levels of members/adherents have a certain political pursuasion doesn’t make the institution biased, corrupt or incapable of self-correction.
18th June 2008 at 5:28 pm
Oranjepan
Are you denying that Chris Huhne said that in his judgment detention for 28 days was justified? Are you denying that he said he was “very happy” with 28 days?
Are you suggesting that viewed “in context”, these statements would turn out to mean that he thought 28 days _wasn’t_ justified? Or that he was very _unhappy_ with 28 days?
No?
Then you clearly are being dishonest in trying to give people the impression that it was only a matter of Huhne preferring 28 days to 42 days.
So please spare me all the long-winded, pompous advice about what I must do, in your view, to be a “significantly more credible commentator”.
At least I’m capable of acknowledging the clear meaning of plain English.
18th June 2008 at 5:39 pm
Not quite sure what you mean there. My argument in respect of the churches is that I think the claims of religion are false. This makes the churches pretty irredeemable in my view, unless you think that in the fullness of time they are likely to agree with me and morph into humanist associations. I think the Unitarian church may in fact have come close to this point, but in general it’s not going to happen. They look like they are going to die a slow agonising death instead. But how does this relate to the present discussion?
18th June 2008 at 5:41 pm
Anon - understanding plain English is one thing, but following all the twists of a nuanced argument appears to be a much higher skill, eh?
18th June 2008 at 6:06 pm
Oranjepan sneered:
“… understanding plain English is one thing, but following all the twists of a nuanced argument appears to be a much higher skill, eh?”
There’s hardly anything “nuanced” about Chris Huhne saying he currently supports detention without charge for 28 days, but that the period should be regularly reviewed.
But as I’ve said, what baffles me is the fact that no one else here (apart from Hywel Morgan) seems to think there’s anything wrong with Huhne’s support for 28 days. Though, to be fair, the desperate efforts to deny he meant what he said presumably indicate some embarrassment over his position.
18th June 2008 at 6:17 pm
“Nick Clegg has clearly been party to a stitch-up here and, in so doing, has either been exceedingly clever in a way that I can’t quite understand, or has made a grave error of judgement.”
The first one.
18th June 2008 at 6:26 pm
Well as you know Laurence I agree that David Davis is about the last person on this earth we should be considering as anointing our champion of our liberty. Even a cursory glance at his website attests to the complete vanity of his campaign and no doubt he will claim it as a stunning victory when he rolls over the fruit and veg seller opposing him.
Wheels within wheels and I have the strong smell of something unpleasent from this whole charade; i rather suspect his crusade is to liberate the reins of Conservative power from David Cameron and I rather suspect in his heart of hearts Cameron feels the same way - hence the necessary smiley photo op but no cold hard cash.
Rather than cheerleading Davis we should be giving him the debate he claims to want and outlinging the case for civil liberties within the context of campaigning for a progressive liberal society….
18th June 2008 at 6:36 pm
Yes, I for one would like a wide-ranging debate, in which conventional, “normal” (that most hateful & poisonous of words) attitudes towards drugs & consensual sex were challenged. Surely people are realising that the present approach is a failure. I understand that the Lib Dems probably won’t enact my views as policy, but we scouts shoult put our heads above the trench now.
Just for once in my life, I agree with Brendan O’Neill, though I reserve the right to hold views on him that cannot be expressed on a family blog.
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/5359
18th June 2008 at 7:49 pm
Which just highlights my point that it’s bad legislation.
I don’t expect anything like that to happen in my life-time, i’ll certainly oppose it strongly. But the point is that the legislation as intended allows for just such a scenario.
All it needs is something to fire up the public and to get them to elect a government with a specific agenda to oppose an “enemy” be they muslim, jew, atheist, goth or geeks, black, white, or asian, farmers or lawyers and the legislation is in place for them to abuse it and allow them to come down hard on “the enemy”.
A good government, as evidenced by good legislation, is one that creates laws with safeguards that protect the citizens not just from the target of the legislation but also from abuse by that very government or any that follows it.
That’s why constitutions are such a powerful tool in a safe democracy. It’s extremely hard to change a constitution usually, normally 3/4 majorities, to ensure that a government riding on the waves of public (or imagined) hysteria cannot start making horrible legislation or legislation that could come back to haunt the country later.
The Magna Carta, however flawed and dated, is a major cornerstone of our unwritten constitution, possibly even it’s bedrock, and labour overturned it with a simple 9 vote majority.
It’s why we need a constitution to prevent legislation like this from ever becoming law.
People like you and our current government that imagine no one in power will ever abuse such legislation present a greater danger to our country than the terrorist ever will.
Terrorists come and go, but legislation has a habit of hanging around, waiting for an opportunist government to dust it off and abuse it. “Emergency” legislation to deal with a current crisis is almost never reversed.
Do you honestly think that if the islamic terrorist threat ends we’ll got back to single digit detention without charge? The government will find another excuse, another expedient to never return our lost liberty.
18th June 2008 at 7:55 pm
“The Magna Carta, however flawed and dated, is a major cornerstone of our unwritten constitution, possibly even it’s bedrock, and labour overturned it with a simple 9 vote majority.”
So 28 days is consistent with Magna Carta now, but 42 days isn’t?
18th June 2008 at 8:07 pm
“The Magna Carta, however flawed and dated, is a major cornerstone of our unwritten constitution, possibly even it’s bedrock, and labour overturned it with a simple 9 vote majority.”
It doesn’t do much for the kinsmen of Gerard D’Athee though :-). More seriously other than non punishment without law most of the things we would want in a justice system are missing (eg the ability to challenge witnesses against you which didn’t arrive till centuries later)
Magna Carta didn’t give much protection to Guy Fawkes or the regicides for example.
Laurence is right to this degree - Magna Carta’s significance is as a piece of history and the first expression of the limitations of the power of the state (in the form of the King). As a modern expression of civil liberties it’s pretty lacking.
18th June 2008 at 8:09 pm
Well I agree with what you say Martin, and I’m against 42 days. But rightly or wrongly the vote was carried in Parliament, and maybe we shouldn’t now be trying to subvert it. I just think that Davis’s move is unwarranted, and that we would be in a much happier place if we were opposing him on everything that divides us which happens to be a very long list.
18th June 2008 at 8:47 pm
I’ve never disagreed with that.
My meaning wasn’t clear, apologies. I’m less concerned with the content of the magna carta than with it’s value as a symbol, the best symbol for our unwritten constitution as we are likely to get.
Alas, since a constitution would work against the anti-civil-rights agenda of the current government we’ll never see it while they are in power. If the government really cared about our liberties instead of just paying lip-service to them, we’d have a written constitution by now, or be well on the way to having one.
There’s no one document you can point to and say… this defines us; this is what we believe in. All modern constitutions are in some way the descendants of Magna Carta and it’s something we can point to; however flimsy and out of date.
I’m also against 28 days, strongly; anything over 5 days (ideally no more than 2) is a travesty of justice. The moment our detention with out charge time exceeded those of countries with sterling human rights records like Russia (5 days) and became treble that of any other western country (28) days and now nearly 10 times as long as most democracies (42 days), we lost the right to call ourself a free and liberal society. First 28 days, now 40, eventually the 90 that Blair (both of them) wanted, then 180, then we our own guantanamo bay (which you could argue we already have in the form of our immigrant concentration camps), all to appease this chimerical army of terrorists that will blow up the entire country if don’t take away all our civil liberties to stop them.
And before people object to me trying to stop the police doing their work. I’ve nothing against questioning after charging, or using wire-tap evidence, as long as there is good judicial oversight in both cases and the initial charge is a valid one. That’s more than enough to allow the police the time and resources to do their job and do it well, without having to trample on our liberties.
Locking someone up without telling them why is something terrorist, rogue and dictatorial states do. Now we’ve joined them.
We’re not trying to subvert it, we’re opposing it, using those legal avenues the government has not yet managed to take away from us. It’s not law yet and there’s even a good chance that it’s illegal in it’s own right. The Lords can still throw it out and lacking a constitution of our own, we’ve got the European Court of Human Rights to protect us from our own inept government as well.
You refuse to lie down to organised religion dictating terms to us Laurence, but when the government starts worshipping the “god of terrorism” and tries to appease him by sacrificing our liberties on his alter, you roll over and let it happen.
18th June 2008 at 9:05 pm
I know. It’s always highly risky when one tries to speak up for “ordinary people.” But people really don’t give a stuff about this agenda. All the noise is coming from a small band of activists and politicos, many from the hard right libertarian fruitcake tendency.
That’s certainly what the master strategist Gordon Brown is thinking.
There’s more than to politics than just getting our policies put into place. Labour’s pushing the boundaries of what constitutes justice in a democracy and we have a duty to stop this from happening.
Davies supports other causes which we disagree with. Fine. But these positions are still within the realms of democratic politics. Japan recently executed a man who killed and ate little girls. Other places have harsher immigration laws or fewer gay rights.
None of them have anything like 42 day detention for ‘terror suspects’.
18th June 2008 at 9:36 pm
It’s not law yet and there’s even a good chance that it’s illegal in it’s own right. The Lords can still throw it out and lacking a constitution of our own, we’ve got the European Court of Human Rights to protect us from our own inept government as well.
So we’re fine then. Relax man!
(Just to be clear, I object as much to disorganised religion as I do to organised religion.)
18th June 2008 at 10:22 pm
No, we’re not. Complacency is first step to tyranny. (I’m sure someone said that before, so I won’t claim originality.)
If everyone took your cavalier attitude to liberty we’d have none left any more.
And while you might not care to stand up and protect your freedoms, just remember that if a religion-brainwashed government gets into power and uses these laws against us “evil, immoral, degenerate” atheists and locks up up without charge, you’ll regret not having stood up for your rights before.
The time to protect our liberties is when they are safe, because once they are not, it’s already too late.
More people have been killed by knives in this country in the last 10 years than by terrorists; at the rate we are going it will probably be more knife deaths this year alone than terrorist deaths in the last 10 years.
Our response to terrorism is totally out of proportion to the danger it poses. The IRA were considerably more “professional” and successful as terrorists than our current crop of lunatics and we didn’t need those laws then.
We’ve become a nation of cowards whose government enacts draconian laws to protect us from our own shadows.
And if we lose the moral high ground on civil liberties and freedoms, as the Americans have done with Guantamo and Iraq and we are doing with 28 days end almost certainly with 42 days, what right do we then have to criticise other countries’ suppression of liberty, like Zimbabwe, China, North Korea or Iran?
18th June 2008 at 10:53 pm
MartinSGill
Well said.
“The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.”
—- John Philpot Curran
18th June 2008 at 11:03 pm
Martin S Gill wrote:
“More people have been killed by knives in this country in the last 10 years than by terrorists;”
Indeed. And as I never tire of pointing out, in Britain many more have died at the hands of Dr Harold Shipman than Al-Qaeda. Is the government proposing to lock doctors up for 42 days?
“We’ve become a nation of cowards whose government enacts draconian laws to protect us from our own shadows.”
According to Herbert Marcuse, that is the very point of terrorism, and the reason why he promoted it. The more oppressive the state becomes, the more likley are the workers to rise up and overthrow it.
Islamic terrorism is real. But to me the remarkable thing about it is how unsuccessful it has been. Only one attack in the UK has killed anyone thus far. Most of these would-be terrorists have been so incompetent that the Police have managed to catch them before they have had a chance to carry out attacks. MI5 has been doing a commendable job.
A couple of questions:-
(1) Why did the US military stop the SAS killing Bin-Laden?
(2) How did a 48-storey reinforced steel building that had not been hit by an aeroplane manage to collapse symmetrically into its own footprint in 6.5 seconds?
18th June 2008 at 11:24 pm
If everyone took your cavalier attitude to liberty we’d have none left any more.
It’s the other way round. You talk as if we started with 100% liberty and have steadily been haemorrhaging it over the years. In fact back in 1215, we had no liberty whatsoever, and it’s been steadily on the increase since then. That’s what I feel is missing from the debate: a true appreciation of the arrow of history. We’ve never had it so good!
18th June 2008 at 11:28 pm
All the more reason to protect what we have lest we lose it.
You are currently in favour of sliding backwards, or at least no actively opposed to it.
18th June 2008 at 11:39 pm
I don’t happen to believe that an irreversible slide back to the bad old days is even possible now. The key is knowledge and technology. After I’ve been locked up for 42 days for being an atheist, I shall be back on here blogging about it. The horse has well and truly bolted.
19th June 2008 at 12:17 am
It didn’t take 6.5 seconds. It took 5-7 hours. The planes hit at 9am, at 10am the first tower collapsed, at 5.20pm building 7 collapsed.
It collapsed because large chunks of debris landed on it and severely damaged it. The construction of the building contributed to it’s demise as the load bearing columns were towards the exterior of the building and hence more vulnerable to damage from falling debris than a different building might be.
This was compounded by the fact that the sprinkler system was woefully inadequate and was ineffective at quenching fires started by falling debris, consequently allowing the building to burn for a considerable length of time (witnesses report considerable flames coming from the building, moving from floor to floor, between 2pm and 5pm), essentially deep frying what remained of the structural members and weakening them considerably.
The explanation provided by the two reports into the the collapse, the first by FEMA noting further investigation was required and triggering the the 2nd by NIST (soon to be finalised, if it hasn’t been already) provide considerably more plausible evidence for the collapse than “controlled demolition” theories (the only other theory usually presented.
For a controlled demolition the building would have to have been covered in explosives and extensive work would have needed to be done to cut through the major supporting structures weakening them and using those cuts to help shape the direction into which the building will fall. This is standard operating procedure and necessary for controlled demolitions. It would have made the building very unsafe and certainly not safe for people to work in on a daily basis. Also what effect could exposure to hours of fire have done to any explosives, and finally, why didn’t anyone working there, or the firemen who spent a couple of hours fighting the fires in there (hampered by low water pressure which was also making the sprinklers ineffective) see them.
In fact, so obvious was the impending failure of structural integrity of the building (it started to bulge alarmingly) that the fire brigade evacuated the building in good time and no one was injured by the collapse.
And that doesn’t even consider the complete implausibility of any government carrying out such a complex and involved plot without any leaks whatsoever.
Wikipedia has a very detailed entry on the building collapse, including lots of cross references for people to follow up on.
Of course, far be it from such mundane things as facts and common sense to stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
19th June 2008 at 1:44 am
I am not a supporter of capital punishment in any circumstances but I respect David Davis’s personal view of when it might be justified. I don’t agree with the Liberal Democrats who said his comments signalled a “shift to the right of terrifying proportions”.
If you read what was actually reported Mr Davis said there were “narrow circumstances” under which he believes capital punishment should apply.
“If somebody plans to carry out a series of murders … then this is obviously an evil and pre-meditated attack and in that case, there could be a deterrent effect.”
I am not clear why this personal view (probably shared by a wide range of the populace) can be seen as “a shift to the right of terrifying proportions”.
Instead of trying to dismiss Davis as a “right wing nutter” why don’t you engage in the debate he has provoked about the issues that affect the erosion of our freedoms instigated by this doomed Labour Government?
19th June 2008 at 8:03 am
I’m not sure that’s true any more. A recent cabinet office survey on crime deterrence (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7460134.stm [bottom]) shows that less than 25% of the respondents think capital punishment will act as an effective deterrent.
Interestingly enough, putting people in prison was even lower at only just above 10%. ID cards, happily, were also very low, under 20%.
19th June 2008 at 8:20 am
Martin S Gill, if you actually believe that garbage about WT7 you are capable of believing absolutely anything, including the reality of Father Christmas.
WT7 was struck by considerably less debris than less substantial buildings that didn’t collapse (there is photographic evidence for this). Also, contrary to what you have been fed by the White House/Pentagon, the load-bearing columns were distributed evenly across the building.
I don’t know why the building collapsed, but what I do know is that the “official” narrative is hogwash.
You obviously have extensive experience of controlled demolition, so far be it from me to argue with an expert on that point.
Collusion? No, never. That nice Mr Cheney would never do such a thing. That settles it, eh?
BTW, the building actually did collapse in 6.5 seconds.
19th June 2008 at 8:22 am
Martin S Gill wrote:
“And that doesn’t even consider the complete implausibility of any government carrying out such a complex and involved plot without any leaks whatsoever.”
Oh right. Like the Manhattan Project and the D Day landings?
19th June 2008 at 8:22 am
If it’s on Wikipedia it just HAS to be true!
19th June 2008 at 9:27 am
The Manhattan project was never secret, at least not from local people. They knew something was going on, just not exactly what. The evidence was all there and the smarter people suspected what was happening but kept quiet out of patriotism and loyalty to their nation.
The Germans and Japanese suspected it existed but probably never infiltrated it, whereas the Soviets managed to get detailed information on it and pretty much riddled the project with spies; a lot of the knowledge the soviets needed for their own bombs was stolen from the Manhattan project.
From the official history:
http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/espionage.htm
The D-Day landings were never secret. The Germans knew that they were going to happen. The D-Day landing were obvious to everyone on both sides.
What prevented the Germans from figuring out the where and when was an elaborate series of misdirections, lack of aerial reconnaissance and a poor, under-staffed intelligence service, not to mention a considerable amount of luck on the allied side. The German forces were fully aware of and fully prepared for d-day landings, they just didn’t know the exact date and they were at the wrong place. The fact that so many people died during the landings also indicates that despite being wrong-footed the German defenders had covered (albeit ultimately and serendipitously very poorly) that eventuality as well.
Your premise therefore is entirely wrong. Neither project was hidden well from the enemy, they could also not be hidden from the local population. In fact, the local population was complicit in keeping that information from the enemy.
Like most of the so-called big secrets of history, the clues and information was there all along, just no one managed to piece it together entirely; for example pearl harbour. But of course that was probably a US conspiracy as well, after all, why had all the carriers left port just before it happened? Or maybe US intelligence was undermined by British agents to force the US into the war?
There’s also a very big psychological difference between those two events and your conspiracy theory. In D-Day and Manhattan those people were working to defend and protect their fellow citizens, not attack them and betray them as your scenario would require.
Your conspiracy would require everyone involved in it to be happily able turn against the ideals of their country, essentially making them traitors.
You might be able to do that easily, but I doubt anyone having sworn an oath to protect their country would find it easy.
As I said, a summary with lots of references, I never said it was my source. Essentially wikipedia is summarising what other sources say is true, and provides a good starting point for anyone prepared to approach the issue rationally; it even mentions your theory, providing space even for your views.
Disregarding the information because it’s in wikipedia shows as much rational thought and common sense as accepting everything in wikiepdia as unequivocally true.
If you don’t believe it, or are sceptical, follow the references and review their credentials.
I’m much more inclined to believe a group of highly qualified, experienced and respected engineers and scientists having performed a detailed investigation than a bunch of glory-hounds speculating without evidence because they (rightly or wrongly) despise the Bush (or indeed any) government and assign them evil motivations or actions when simple stupidity and ineptitude will suffice.
There’s about as much evidence of a conspiracy as there is of aliens having done it. Not that that will stop the irrational from believing it all the same.
19th June 2008 at 9:31 am
Martin S Gill,
My previous comment has been censored, so it looks as though you have the floor to yourself to defend Bush and Cheney and their far-fetched account of what hapepned on 9/11!
You can insult me as much as you like, because I am not allowed to answer back! At least not on this forum.
19th June 2008 at 9:37 am
By the way, Martin S Gill.
Your reference to “my conspiracy theory” is disingenuous.
I haven’t proposed a conspiracy theory. I have merely questioned an official account.
Apparently, for “rationalists” such as yourself not the slightest hint of deviation from the party line can be tolerated.
So the Germans knew DD was coming. That is presumably why they were all lined up on the Normandy Beaches ready to repulse it.
I repeat, I don’t have a conspiracy theory. Your allegation that I do is false and dishonest.
19th June 2008 at 9:50 am
“Censored” posts are still sent by email; and I’ve not received one. If you posted something with 3 or more links in it, they go into moderation as possible spam and need to be approved; something that’s happened to me on occasion.
Of course that’s probably just a conspiracy aimed directly against you.
I never said I believed them. I think they are trying as hard as possible to cover up just how inept and stupid they and their policies were. The mass of destroyed (or lost) white house email is just one example.
Not to mention the fact that they used the incident as a propaganda coup in their jihad against Saddam Hussein.
They exploited the incident shamelessly, but I don’t believe for a second they were active collaborators. I do believe they (and US foreign policy during the cold war) contributed significantly to the incident.
The fact that Bush just sat there like gormless lump when he was told about the attacks suggests quite clearly to me that he had no idea it was coming and was totally unprepared to deal with it. Which just underlines what an incompetent president he is.
19th June 2008 at 9:57 am
Martin S Gill,
I am not going to argue about the technical details. There are others far more knowledgeable than myself who can do that if they wish.
What I question is your use of abuse and smear (demonising those who question the official account as “glory hounds”, for instance), and you multiple appeals to authority (they&