.
Due process? That's for liberals... - Grin with cat attached — LiveJournal
Previous Entry Next Entry
Due process? That's for liberals... Aug. 5th, 2005 02:01 pm
You may have seen this propogated elsewhere:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4747573.stm

Blair's starting to openly drop human rights measures, and due process is under threat. This is not only a completely disproportionate reaction to the recent terrorist activities, but a direct threat to the concept that law should come from the courts rather than a politician's whim - something Labour have frequently been a bit too keen on.

There is a common perception that Liberals like making it difficult to punish the guilty. In truth, we like making it difficult to punish the innocent, by maintaining due process and the burden of proof. This can make it harder to punish the guilty, but not usually significantly so, and it is an accepted tenet of political theory that any free and fair society must raise significant safeguards against miscarriages of justice. The burden of proof is simply one of the prices that you pay for free and democratic societies.

Equally, laws that give "discretion" to government or Police agencies are profoundly undemocratic, and dangerous. The promise is always that the powers will never be used "in an unintended manner", but they invariably are (cf RIP, CJB), and (the point which their proponents always seem keen to miss) they can be misused against 'dissidents' as easily as against genuine threats.

The price of liberty is, as is frequently noted, eternal vigilance, against governments as much as against enemies - and liberties are always far more easily lost than regained.

(The price of Liberty, on the other hand, starts at 8 quid).

From: thecesspit
Date: August 5th, 2005 - 02:02 pm (Link)
If you've ever read the definition of Terrorism in the Prevention of Terrorism Act, you'll be aware how sketchy it really is.

I'm off to visit banned websites and visit a few banned mosques.... I'll be fine because:

"Home secretary to consider deporting any foreigner involved in listed extremist centres and websites"

I'm not a foriegner.... which is the self same problem they had with Belmarsh and how that got altered.

(Sigh).
From: mooism
Date: August 5th, 2005 - 02:26 pm (Link)
Blimey, that’s a dodgy-looking url for Liberty!
From: wechsler
Date: August 5th, 2005 - 02:40 pm (Link)
It is a bit, but it's linked from Liberty's main site as Join -> Join Online.

hmpf

From: bondagewoodelf
Date: August 5th, 2005 - 02:27 pm (Link)
deporting ... foreigner

I don't like those 2 words in the same sentence. For me, considering the current laws in the USA, I've decided not to visit there anymore for the time being.

If this goes through in the UK, I'm afraid I'll have to add the UK to this list ;-(

Re: hmpf

From: fellcat
Date: August 5th, 2005 - 02:46 pm (Link)
EU law may protect you against deportation, assuming that your nationality is consistent with the location stated in your infopage.
From: mrph
Date: August 6th, 2005 - 10:08 am (Link)
The Ken Livingstone response:

"I support laws banning people or organisations that support terrorist attacks such as we saw on 7 July.

I also support measures against those who incite racial or religious hatred.

Any laws must be precisely worded to deal with the terrorist threat without criminalising those who are our allies in fighting it.

Unfortunately, the wording presently reported is so vague that 20 years ago it would have meant banning Nelson Mandela or anyone supporting him."

Talking sense, once again.