The right to liberty and security
This lame excuse for a democratic government - here, in what is supposedly the origin of the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy - is considering suspending a key part of our human rights. That sounds wishy-washy; what it actually means is the suspension of the idea of right to liberty. It's a key part - perhaps the key part - of the idea of rule of law and fair justice. The idea that people are free and at liberty, unless deprived by due process of law.
John Reid, a man who truly scares me, is going to seek to get a derogation from Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights and thus the Human Rights Act 1998. It says, amongst other things, (and I am summarising perhaps inaccurately, so look at the original):
That's the thing - they're suspects! They aren't criminals - yet. They can't be prosecuted for lack of evidence. Most of them are illegal immigrants, or immigrants who have broken the conditions of stay, yet we will not/cannot deport them for fear of what they may do back in their countries of origin. This government, and other Western democracies, are obsessed with the idea of security and safety, in our cosseted lifestyles and cocoons. The idea that risk might exist is becoming anathema. And yet risk cannot be eliminated.
So, instead of upping the money and resources to the security services to follow and watch the suspects, we simply use house arrest. There's no "beyond reasonable" doubt in this - the Home Secretary says they might be a risk, a court rubberstamps this and locked away they go. What difference then between detention orders here and house arrest elsewhere in the world? If this so-called "war on terror" (rather an impossible thing; like fighting fog) is worth 'fighting', then we are defending our society. But what are we defending, if we alter and remove cherished and important safeguards? If we sleepwalk into authoritarian rules and regulations, how is that different to Islamic fundamentalism, any fundamentalism, imposed Communism?
Perhaps we ought to try to confront dangerous ideologies head on. Perhaps we ought to try to make people feel integrated and safe in our culture, and make people of all creeds realise that, in this country, we all have the right to peacefully coexist. If the government had any guts, they'd say "it's tough, but let's work round our freedoms and safeguards". Instead of clumsily stripping them away with cack-handed, knee-jerk legislation that gives scant thought to the future and sets a terrible precedent.
John Reid, a man who truly scares me, is going to seek to get a derogation from Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights and thus the Human Rights Act 1998. It says, amongst other things, (and I am summarising perhaps inaccurately, so look at the original):
- no one shall be deprived of liberty, except due to court action, bail, education of a minor (truancy), diseases that spread easily and dangerously, mental health issues, vagrancy, and issues of illegal immigration
- anyone arrested must be promptly informed in a language they understand why they have been arrested and on what charge, if any
- on detention, one must be brought promptly before a judicial officer/judge, brought promptly to trial or released on bail on reliable guarantee of turning up for trial (allowing for bail restrictions)
- everyone arrested or detained is entitled to legal proceedings to determine speedily the legality of their detention and released if the detention is judged illegal
- there is an enforcable right to compensation for thoses detained or arrested contrary to the provisions of Article 5
That's the thing - they're suspects! They aren't criminals - yet. They can't be prosecuted for lack of evidence. Most of them are illegal immigrants, or immigrants who have broken the conditions of stay, yet we will not/cannot deport them for fear of what they may do back in their countries of origin. This government, and other Western democracies, are obsessed with the idea of security and safety, in our cosseted lifestyles and cocoons. The idea that risk might exist is becoming anathema. And yet risk cannot be eliminated.
So, instead of upping the money and resources to the security services to follow and watch the suspects, we simply use house arrest. There's no "beyond reasonable" doubt in this - the Home Secretary says they might be a risk, a court rubberstamps this and locked away they go. What difference then between detention orders here and house arrest elsewhere in the world? If this so-called "war on terror" (rather an impossible thing; like fighting fog) is worth 'fighting', then we are defending our society. But what are we defending, if we alter and remove cherished and important safeguards? If we sleepwalk into authoritarian rules and regulations, how is that different to Islamic fundamentalism, any fundamentalism, imposed Communism?
Perhaps we ought to try to confront dangerous ideologies head on. Perhaps we ought to try to make people feel integrated and safe in our culture, and make people of all creeds realise that, in this country, we all have the right to peacefully coexist. If the government had any guts, they'd say "it's tough, but let's work round our freedoms and safeguards". Instead of clumsily stripping them away with cack-handed, knee-jerk legislation that gives scant thought to the future and sets a terrible precedent.