July 8, 2008
Perfect timing for David Davis
Thursday’s by-election in Haltemprice and Howden was starting to look like a bizarre circus.
No disrespect to the electoral candidates such as “Mad Cow-Girl” (pictured below), David Laurence Bishop (Church of the Militant Elvis party) and Tess Culnane (National Front).
But David Davis’s one-man campaign to promote civil liberties received a shot in the arm today from the stirring debate in the House of Lords.
Former experts who know what they’re talking about lined up to criticise 42 days.
* Lady Manningham-Buller, former head of MI5 (”I don’t see, on a principled basis, as well as a practical one, that these proposals are in any way workable.”)
* Former attorney general Lord Goldsmith (it risks ”giving away the very freedoms that terrorists are trying to take from us”.)
* Former Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer (”I’m absolutely clear that there’s no advantage for fighting terrorism that will be obtained from extending detentions to 42 days.”)
The timing could not be better for Davis, who is campaigning against the extension of pre-terror detention as well as the wider “Big Brother” state - CCTV, DNA database etc.
The only candidate who might put a dent in his bandwaggon is Jill Saward, victim of the notorious “Ealing Vicarage” rape in 1986.
Her line may also strike a chord with voters: “Too often we hear politicians and criminal justice experts talk about the rights of the accused, the rights of prisoners, and the rights of ex-offenders - even the rights of suspected terrorists.”
Speaking to me on the phone this morning Ms Saward argued that Davis’s views were “a very ideological view of how Britain used to be” from a time when neighbourhoods were more close-knit. Today, people relied more on the state to protect them, she said.
While claiming to want to be an MP, she also admitted that just getting a large number of votes - and raising the concerns of crime victims - would be satisfying.
Remember, the Lib Dems and Labour aren’t standing.
It’s not enough for Davis to maintain his vote; for him to claim any success here he needs to raise it, substantially.
This girl is absolutely right - the emphasis needs to be on protecting all of us - not from the state, not from the law but from those who would do us harm deliberately - just look at the number of knife murders in London compared with how many people have been wrongly incarcerated. Why are Davis and the others banging on about 42 days. Its a waste of public time and money. Why is he not making the same level of noise about knife crime, about terrorist atrocities which happen on a daily basis. About the muggings and rapes - about the general level of violence in our society. These are the things that matter. Not abstruse ideology. We already have evil people being released on technicalities because of rights they do not deserve - how much more, how much longer will we have to put up with the injustice meted out to victims of crime. For Gods sake Davis, stand aside or start shouting about things that really matter. After all, the only people affected by this longer detention are those who we should be on our guard against most. Davis, devoid of any real concern or policy is playing the conspiracy card against the government for purely political ends and ambition. I implore all voters in this by election to think twice about his motives in this campaign.
Posted by: Alan Webster | July 8th, 2008 at 7:06 pm | Report this commentWhilst I agree that communities are not as closely nit as they previously were, this is a mixing of two very separate issues.
Detention without charge* is a fundamental abuse of the legal system and the power of the state. If, in this example, a suspected rapist is apprehended, then the person in question must be told exactly why they are being held. This does not preclude prosecution or a trial, or even holding the person in question on remand if they are judged to be dangerous, but it does give a guarantee that ALL of us, not just the supposed guilty have the right to know exactly what we are accused of.
To mix the issues of public safety and arbitrary state detention is very foolish; it sets a precedent which has not existed in England since 1215 (for the purposes of this argument, I will treat 28 and 42 days as the same principle, and ignore internment in Northern Ireland as I am solely referring to England).
Arbitrary detention without charge has not been practiced widely in England, unlike in European countries. When it has been attempted (for example in the Five Knight’s Case (1627)) it has resulted in serious constitutional ramifications; in this case, a contributory factor to the English Civil War.
With reference to the comment above, this issue is not about ‘technicalities’, but instead it is an usurpation of the Constitution of England, partly laid down in Magna Carta (1218), but also in documents such as the Petition of Right (1628), Habus Corpus Act (1679), Bill of Rights (1689), Human Rights Act (1998) as well as precedents set by our common law courts. Arbitrary detention without charge is the legal tool of dictatorships - something that England has not been since 1215 (despite some abuses of power over the years). By laying down the right of the state to detain people without a reason, a dangerous precedent is set which affects us all and does little to address either security (’terrorism’) or criminal issues.
Knife crime and terrorism affect an individual, excessive state power effects a whole nation and a whole people and forever changes the relationship between the citizen and the state. It should be resisted by all means.
On a slightly different note, the recent media reports of stabbings, murders and shootings are a little late. Cities in the UK have long been known to be very dangerous places, with high murder rates and high incidences of weapon based assaults. Operation Trident (focusing on shootings in the ‘black’ community in London) was set up in 1998, 127 people were murdered in Glasgow in 2002 (Europe’s murder capital). The recent public concern has come about, it seems to me, because there has been a spate of murders of white, middle class English teenagers which have received wide media coverage and brought about a call of “something must be done”. It is strange that murders taking place in Glasgow (with knives) are unreported in the national media, yet murders in London receive hours and hours of media coverage, deliberation and policy ideas.
Also unnoticed, has been the shift in the reason for murder; moving away from the old financial/power based rational to issues to do with ‘respect’ and possession of females. If we are serious about tackling the problem, then the economics of the issue must be addressed which is easily summed up by the dynamic of the drug market. As people can earn upwards of £4000 per week dealing drugs and working for dealers, there is no incentive to participate in the legal economy and so violence (which accompanies all criminal markets) will grow exponentially.
The solution to ‘the problem’ is not arbitrary detention or the removal of rights that have been won by the spilling of many soul’s blood, but instead an understanding of the economics of the situation as well as an acceptance that in a country with 65 million people, there will be some who are prepared to murder.
Our rights are all that prevent us from being owned by the state and we must fight to protect them - otherwise there is no point in living anyway.
*this is without being told why you are being held
Posted by: Anon | July 8th, 2008 at 10:10 pm | Report this comment