UK anti-terror bill

[kirovman]

Well this law has just been passed after much compromise and debate.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4341269.stm

It gives the the government more powers over suspected terrorists, from tagging them, to placing them under house arrest.

The reason given is that the intelligence material on them is too sensitive to be revealed in a typical court of law.
And they can't be prosecuted in court because spy bugs can't be used as evidence in court.

The legislation will expire in one year's time, so it may be reviewed further - denied by Tony Blair as being a "Sunset Clause", proposed by the Conservatives.


It doesn't sound as far as the US has been going, but there are fears that it is the biggest threat to civil liberties in the UK, in over 300 years.

So what do you think? Is this legislation rational and under good judgement or not? Will civil rights be under threat?
And, are we taking one step towards becoming an Authoritarian Police State?

 

[KoreBolteR]

yes, very good idea.

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

Basically...I don't like it. The fact that Charles Clark was trying to put it through in its original form does nothing for my estimation of him.
This terrorism paranoia is going too far. I understand there are problems, but instead of battening down the hatches and hiding away from the world in some Big Brother fantasy, we should be looking out to the world to see how to solve the cause of these problems. Even if Charles isn't doing this out of some twisted agenda, hes being too reactionary and thats not what leaders should be.

 

[Kangy]

For Mantis' sake, the IRA terrorized this country for years. We got better at preventing it, better at making peace. We never had to resort to this kind of Orwellian bullcrap.

Successful attacks
IRA: a lot (supported by many citizens of the US for a long time, too).

Bin Laden+Chums: 0 successful attacks.

Oh, and may I remind you that the I.D. cards in combination with this all fall into one sticky web of losing our rights?

 

[PickledGecko]

You can't use a persons voice when its recorded by a bug, but you can use testimony acquired through torture. Even though any half wit can tell you that a person will sign any confession in order to make the torture stop, regardless of the truth. Why not just let courts use the evidence, even if you just make an exception for suspected terrorist. That way they still get a trial and we don't have to live in an Orwellian nightmare.

 

[Calanen]

I had a look at the legislation, for any1 who wants a copy of the bill that was floating around (but which looks like it may now be amended again perhaps)

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldbills/037/05037.1-7.html#j001

Short thumbnail sketch (and no this is NOT legal advice for any1 out there - too much like work for me to work out exactly what is going on) either the Court or the Secretary of State can impose an order on you to do certain things, ie move to certain places, or not buy chemicals..but pretty broad.

If any of those things are inconsistent with Article 5 of the Human Rights Convention, only the court can make the order if on the balance of probabilities the person is involved in terrorism. The Secretary of State seems to be able to make the order without reference to any guidelines in the Act unless Im missing something, he does not have to be satisfied of anything. I think thats a deficiency in the Act - the Secretary of State must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities to the extent he could prove so in court that he was so satisfied that the person was engaged in terrorist activities. Here it seems that the Secretary of State can just make the order, because he feels like it, and as long as it does not breach the Human Rights Convention he is home.

The problem with such a bill, without certain safeguards is that a nasty government in the future could designate the oppossition party as terrorists potentially and prevent them from meeting with each other. Interestingly, that may get a run on some of the Irish Republicans. The bill will have to be challenged if it becomes an Act, it is inevitable if they start applying it to the radical muslims that live in England and call for destruction of the west.

There are time limits on the orders that can be made, and they need to be renewed by the Court. But if the bill had come before me, I would want pretty stringent guideliness in the ACt for what the Secretary of State has to be satisfied of.

 

[Kangy]

As this will almost certainly be my last speech in Parliament, I shall try hard not to upset anyone. However, our debate here tonight is a grim reminder of how the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary are betraying some of Labour's most cherished beliefs. Not content with tossing aside the ideas and ideals that inspire and inform ideology, they seem to be giving up on values too. Liberty, without which democracy has no meaning, and the rule of law, without which state power cannot be contained, look to Parliament for their protection, but this Parliament, sad to say, is failing the nation badly. It is not just the Government but Back-Bench Members who are to blame. It seems that in situations such as this, politics become incompatible with conscience, principle, decency and self-respect. Regrettably, in such situations, the desire for power and position predominates.

As we move towards a system of justice that found favour with the South African Government at the time of apartheid and which parallels Burmese justice today, if hon. Members will pardon the oxymoron, I am reminded that our fathers fought and died for liberty—my own father literally—believing that these things should not happen here, and we would never allow them to happen here. But now we know better. The unthinkable, the unimaginable, is happening here.

In their defence, the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary say that they are behaving tyrannically and trying to make nonsense of the House of Lords' decision in A and Others as appellants v. the Home Secretary as respondent because they are frightened, and that the rest of us would be frightened too if only we knew what they will not tell us. They preach the politics of fear and ask us to support political incarceration on demand and punishment without trial.

Sad to say, I do not trust the judgment of either our thespian Prime Minister or our Home Secretary, especially given the latter's performance at the Dispatch Box yesterday. It did not take Home Office civil servants or the secret police long to put poison in his water, did it? Paper No. 1, entitled "International Terrorism: the Threat", which the Home Secretary produced yesterday and I have read, is a putrid document if it is intended to justify the measure. Indeed, the Home Secretary dripped out bits of it and it sounded no better as he spoke than it read. Why does he insult the House? Why cannot he produce a better argument than that?

How on earth did a Labour Government get to the point of creating what was described in the House of Lords hearing as a "gulag" at Belmarsh? I remind my hon. Friends that a gulag is a black hole into which people are forcibly directed without hope of ever getting out. Despite savage criticisms by nine Law Lords in 250 paragraphs, all of which I have read and understood, about the creation of the gulag, I have heard not one word of apology from the Prime Minister or the Home Secretary. Worse, I have heard no word of apology from those Back Benchers who voted to establish the gulag.

Have we all, individually and collectively, no shame? I suppose that once one has shown contempt for liberty by voting against it in the Lobby, it becomes easier to do it a second time and after that, a third time. Thus even Members of Parliament who claim to believe in human rights vote to destroy them.

Many Members have gone nap on the matter. They voted: first, to abolish trial by jury in less serious cases; secondly, to abolish trial by jury in more serious cases; thirdly, to approve an unlawful war; fourthly, to create a gulag at Belmarsh; and fifthly, to lock up innocent people in their homes. It is truly terrifying to imagine what those Members of Parliament will vote for next.I can describe all that only as new Labour's descent into hell, which is not a place where I want to be.

I hope that—but doubt whether—ethical principles and liberal thought will triumph tonight over the lazy minds and disengaged consciences that make Labour's Whips Office look so ridiculous and our Parliament so unprincipled.

It is a foul calumny that we do today. Not since the Act of Settlement 1701 has Parliament usurped the powers of the judiciary and allowed the Executive to lock up people without trial in times of peace. May the Government be damned for it.

I salute you, Brian Sedgewick. Someone finally stood up to the fricken idiots in there right now.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Bin Laden+Chums: 0 successful attacks.

What was 9/11? ...

 

[Recoil]

What was 9/11? ...

Something in the US.... not the UK...?

 

[K e r b e r o s]

I agree, it was not a success. Thank god ...

 

[lePobz]

It's basically giving the government the power to detain people without trial for as long as they like. The second this law is passed, we lose all our freedoms. If there is sufficient evidence to suspect these people of being terrorists, then there is sufficient evidence to use in court.

The government has been scaremongering the country increasingly over the last couple of years and its not f***ing right. They can't take liberties with our freedom under a false image of security.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

The second this law is passed, we lose all our freedoms. If there is sufficient evidence to suspect these people of being terrorists, then there is sufficient evidence to use in court.

But the problem with courts, is that if the person is actually a terrorist he can be argued out of judicial punishment.

 

[lePobz]

But the problem with courts, is that if the person is actually a terrorist he can be argued out of judicial punishment.

Which brings me to my next annoyance - the fact the court system is so jammy-packed full of contradicting red tape, you could probably argue that black is white and get away with it. Common sense is hardly common any more, unfortunately.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

I agree :thumbs:

 

[KoreBolteR]

id hate it if they had bin laden, and he wriggled his way out of it by stupid lawsuits and trials and a courtcase.

is any of us got captured by him, our heads would be off, let alone in a court with half a chance of getting free.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

If he wriggled out of a case, I would be amung the many assassins trying to get the bounty on his head.

 

[kirovman]

The worry is not directly at this specific bill.

The worry is that this is just one step towards authoritarianism.

Once you start detaining people without trial, you are removing an element of our democracy, trial by jury, that is an example of democracy in work.
The ability for the authorities to detain without charge...how is that any different from Nazi Germany or PR of China?
The only difference is we elected them, but that doesn't make them any less evil.
Hitler was elected too, you know. And his policies were to introduce bills, until he became the Fuhrer - he instilled people into fear too, by saying that he need the power of Fuhrer to destroy the nation's enemies, afterwards he would give power back to the parliment.
That was a lie though.

I don't think we're going to be as extreme as Nazi Germany, although drawing the parallels is unnerving.

As one person in parliment described it:

"To use the phrase from the National Lottery... It could be you"

 

[Calanen]

I can tell you this, that if they get Bin Laden in the USA, he will never see daylight. If they caught him in the UK, he would be shipped to the US. So no court red tape is going to assist Mr Bin Laden, if they ever get him.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

The ability for the authorities to detain without charge...how is that any different from Nazi Germany or PR of China?

"To use the phrase from the National Lottery... It could be you"

Here's how to survive -- dont act like a terrorist.

 

[kirovman]

I can tell you this, that if they get Bin Laden in the USA, he will never see daylight. If they caught him in the UK, he would be shipped to the US. So no court red tape is going to assist Mr Bin Laden, if they ever get him.

Maybe, but the bill isn't about detaining bin Laden, it's about detaining suspected terrorists.

If they are really terrorists though, I'd like to see them convicted properly using the evidence for which they are being detained in the first place.
If they are detaining them, I'd like to see it being the in the time precluding a trial by judge and jury.

Also consider:
How long until we get a bill detaining us for downloading mp3s?

 

[K e r b e r o s]

suspected terrorists.

Here's an idea: Dont be a suspect.

 

[lePobz]

Here's an idea: Dont be a suspect.

Good theory, but I openly joke about "somebody should nuke america" or "somebody should kill Bush" - if these statements were taken literally i'd lose my freedom and wouldnt get any type of trial. The law is taken too literally these days so you cant expect common sense to save you.

Forgive me if i'm wrong, but isn't freedom where you can say what you like with no worries about being locked away indefinately with no hopes of a trial?

 

[Kangy]

Kerberos, if someone like Kilroy or the BNP got into power, Mantis forbid it ever happen, they're the sorts of people who'd simply say "these people are terrorists who hate our country", and before you know it, Joe Bloggs is locked up because he spoke out about their racist views. Heck, they could arrest me.

Why? Because one of my best friends moved here 3 years ago. He's slowly teaching me Persian, which is a language of cool. What if the Police show their usual ignorance and decide to arrest us, because he could be "trying to convert me"? It's a horrible cycle, and we mustn't allow it to carry on.

We have to get these bastards out.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Good theory, but I openly joke about "somebody should nuke america" or "somebody should kill Bush"

Behind every bit of sarcasm or joke -- there's truth.

But I wont let that bother you -- besides, this has'nt passed.

Why? Because one of my best friends moved here 3 years ago. He's slowly teaching me Persian, which is a language of cool. What if the Police show their usual ignorance and decide to arrest us, because he could be "trying to convert me"? It's a horrible cycle, and we mustn't allow it to carry on.

Then you could argue your way out of court, as it is a ridiculous claim the Police would clammer for. If your not guilty, then dont worry about it. :thumbs:

 

[kirovman]

Then you could argue your way out of court, as it is a ridiculous claim the Police would clammer for. If your not guilty, then dont worry about it. :thumbs:

The point is... you don't get to goto court! You don't get your right to argue your case (which I'm told is one of the fundamental foundations of democracy).

You are detained under the new state powers, with no trial, indefinately (well until 1 years at least when the bill is reviewed).

That's what this thread is all about.

 

[jondy]

Kirov said it above, but I'll hammer it home -

This Bill gives power to politicians, not judges

 

[K e r b e r o s]

... I don't get the UK. ...is everyone that opposed to the law?

 

[jondy]

... I don't get the UK. ...is everyone that opposed to the law?

Whaddya mean you don't get us?

Yeah, by the looks of the BBC polls, most people aren't in favour of the legislation

 

[K e r b e r o s]

So, is it majority vote ... or is that just based upon royality?

 

[jondy]

Heh, majority vote?

We have a Parliament, with a Commons and a Lords. Bills get fought over there.

http://www.parliament.uk/

You can even watch the bickering live at

http://www.parliament.tv/

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Understood ... but dont the people have a word? I mean, if so many oppose it, why is it ... working out to be .... a law?

 

[jondy]

The people's voice is expressed through the Commons. Unfortunately, they don't ultimately have an obligation to public opinion, although obviously political pressure stems from the masses to an extent. It all bears a resemblance to your senate

 

[Calanen]

It's basically giving the government the power to detain people without trial for as long as they like. The second this law is passed, we lose all our freedoms. If there is sufficient evidence to suspect these people of being terrorists, then there is sufficient evidence to use in court.

The government has been scaremongering the country increasingly over the last couple of years and its not f***ing right. They can't take liberties with our freedom under a false image of security.

Not quite right - have a read of the legislation. You get a hearing if you are detained and the order violates Article 5 of the Human Rights Convention, which I assume would include being physically detained. The hearing only has to prove that you are involved in terrorism on the balance of probabilities. I think probably the criminal standard would be a fairer test though.

 

[aeroripper]

If you think you brits have got it bad, take a gander at our patriot acts. Pretty damn loose definition of terrorism if you ask me. Under the administration's own definition of terrorism, they are guilty of bullying the patriot act through congress. Don't forget the 2nd patriot that was supposed to be passed secretly that includes the domestic security enhancement act (read: soviet russia). Somebody leaked it from inside the government otherwise common folk wouldn't know about it.

The patriot acts pretty much throw away our bill of rights and basic freedoms. Meanwhile they'll keep singing "home of the free, land of the brave" and keep telling us how free we are.

Forgive me if i'm wrong, but isn't freedom where you can say what you like with no worries about being locked away indefinately with no hopes of a trial?

Yep, that's where the "freedom isn't free" crap comes from. They'll take away civil liberties in the name of freedom. Lol the irony is funny

 

[jondy]

Yeah, I know; one of the reasons I worry so much about this f'kin bill is I can see the parallels

 

[Razor]

For Mantis' sake, the IRA terrorized this country for years. We got better at preventing it, better at making peace. We never had to resort to this kind of Orwellian bullcrap.

Successful attacks
IRA: a lot (supported by many citizens of the US for a long time, too).

Bin Laden+Chums: 0 successful attacks.

Oh, and may I remind you that the I.D. cards in combination with this all fall into one sticky web of losing our rights?

Exactly, England has been under attack from terrorists on a regular basis for the past 30 years and we have never needed such laws, now that Osama Bin Laden come along and say they might attack, we all start panicking and pushing through such laws. I also agree with CptStern, from what the news has said, both France and Italy pushed through a similar law recently which is far better suited then the law that we have just passed.

I also remember a famous quote, don't know who said it, that pretty much sums up this whole situation.

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance"