.
UK: The home secretary is transforming Britain into a police state,… - Grin with cat attached — LiveJournal
Previous Entry Next Entry
Jan. 28th, 2005 09:50 am
UK: The home secretary is transforming Britain into a police state, says former leading anti-terrorist police chief.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1400584,00.html

From: fellcat
Date: January 28th, 2005 - 01:25 pm (Link)
They could be subjected to potentially daily searches even though they are not accused of any crime, he said.
Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Mr Clarke's proposals to extend powers, such as indefinite house arrest, were not practical and threatened to further marginalise minority communities.

Mr Churchill-Coleman told the Guardian: … You cannot lock people up just because someone says they are terrorists. Internment didn't work in Northern Ireland, it won't work now. You need evidence.
Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 13.
  1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
  2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html



From: sashajwolf
Date: January 28th, 2005 - 02:46 pm (Link)
Yes. They're planning to opt out again.
From: fellcat
Date: January 28th, 2005 - 03:28 pm (Link)
OK, now I'm scared.
From: wechsler
Date: January 29th, 2005 - 10:54 am (Link)
Does the UDHR actually have any legal status though?
From: hiddenpaw
Date: January 28th, 2005 - 09:03 pm (Link)
It really is scary. I thought it would never happen, but it has. The labour party has finaly convinced me to not vote for them.

I've been arrested and investigated by the police on the grounds of an allogation that I committed a crime that never actualy happened in the first place so. It never got as far as encarsaration because there was never any evidence so no judge would have allowed encarsaration. This bill would effectively remove that safeguard and the crime I was accused of wa very unfasionable so the public would probably have bayed for my blood on the off chance had they known. So the claim the Innocent have nothing to fear dose not convince me.

If terrorists manage to take away the freedom of the people of briton and remove from us our rights then they have won a great prize and that is the prize the government intends to hand them. I await with interest details of proposals from other parties (Well the lib dems as frankly I can't vote concervative for other reasons)
From: modalsynthesis
Date: January 29th, 2005 - 10:42 am (Link)
Really...Tony Blair should be distancing himself from this guy as much as possible. Not only is this extreme, but it's totally untenable within the framework of any constitutional democracy.

In the US, they managed to ram through the Patriot Act--which, given this man's comments about surveillance of friends and family of suspects, is less extreme than what he's proposing--and the US courts have slapped down the Bush administration in regards to some of the Patriot Act contents. This is mostly about access to lawyers and government evidence, but there have been challenges to Patriot detentions as well.

In short, I don't see how something like this is kosher with codified Western democratic fundamentals. Perhaps Blair et al know this won't stand but want to buy a few years to have expanded powers before a court strikes this down. (Not sure how the UK works in this regard.)

But I think the far more likely scenario is a schism in the Labour party. Or, given the number of MPs who could walk away from this, leaving Blair with about six MPs behind him.

However, I don't know. I'm just saying that milder versions of some of the particulars aren't passing muster here in the US. I'll just leave it with this comment: if we can't win without betraying our fundamental principles, then we don't really deserve to win.

From: wechsler
Date: January 29th, 2005 - 10:48 am (Link)
Problem is, the UK doesn't *have* a constitution, and there *are* no "codified Western democratic fundamentals".