Parliamentary Supremacy Makes a Comeback
For once Parliament has done the job it was established to do, it has acted as a check on the executive. The British legal system was created with inbuilt checks and balances to, among other things, prevent the arbitrary exercise of power by the executive. In reality with the party whip system, if a government has a strong majority they can ordinarily get their laws passed, but not this time. This is the beginning of the end for Mr Blair in my opinion.
It is refreshing to see MPs voting according to their own beliefs and defying populist opinion. The readers of the Sun do not always know best, and fortunately we are part of a system that does not always revere mob rule.
The proposed new terrorist measures are abhorrent to anyone who values their freedom and can look at the facts in a measured way. All of the people detained under the current legislation for the extended period of 14 days have been successfully charged, so why increase the detention period? Terrorism is an emotive subject but laws should not be passed in the heat of the moment to satisfy a section of the public who are baying for blood and need a quick fix to make them feel secure, particularly when they do not seem to work.
I heard it said this morning that if these 90 day detention powers prevented one death they would be worth it, this is a fallacy. Introducing and intensifying draconian anti-terrorism measures which marginalise a section of the community will, in the long-term, increase the number of deaths. Imagine it you were detained for 3 months when you are innocent, what about your job, would you still have it when you were released? What about your family, how would they feel? Would you forgive the authorities easily? Probably not and if you were already disillusioned with the world you would become even more susceptible to extremism.
Severe anti-terrorist laws are breeding a new generation of terrorists and thank God for Parliamentary supremacy. It was famously said that parliament can do anything that is not naturally impossible; protecting democracy, freedom and rights in times of challenge is not only possible, it is essential.
Excellent post Sister-in ?law, well said. The introduction of the new bill enables the detention of suspects under emergency laws to be held without trial for 28 days, up 14 from the old bill.
For those of us old enough we can remember detention without trial being tried before, right here in N.Ireland. It was called internment it lead to the biggest paramilitary recruitment bootcamp in the world. In affect the government has created an abnormality in statute, a failure of integrity and an infringement on civil liberties.
In the past I have accused the Blair government of being insincere, disengaging with the electorate and backing both sides in the one argument. The introduction of the new bill has all Mr Blairs trappings.
Yesterday Mr Blairs government allowed OTRs to return, but of course the OTRs will have to meet certain criteria by a certificating commissioner. The Certification Commissioner will have a word with the police so as to make sure the OTRs are the real bad guys, not some goodies thinking they are badass. If the commissioner is satisfied they are all that then off they go ? but don?t do it again.
As you rightly remark Parnell, although the 90 day detention clause was defeated, a 28 day detention power was granted. In my opinion this in itself is dangerous. In Northern Ireland a well known case before the European Court of Human Rights found that a 14 day detention without charge could be unlawful, yet 28 days does not appear long enough to satisfy a large section of the public.
It has been proven that longer detention periods lead to an atmosphere conducive of torture, indeed the detention itself could lead to inhuman and degrading treatment. It is frightening to think that the public so readily accept laws that have the potential to take away our freedoms on a whim. In Northern Ireland these powers were seen as necessary and there was little evidence to suggest how successful they would be. Today, however, there is more than enough evidence to suggest that the powers will be counter productive yet this evidence is being disregard by an increasingly arrogant government. I fear the consequences of these laws.
Interesting to note that the period of detention (hat tip Private Eye) is inversely proportional to the number of deaths caused by terrorism in Spain the USA and the UK!
Does no-one understand principles of counter-productivity on the Right at all? Why is there this unthinking kneejerk reaction all the time? I contributed to a right wing blog for some time hoping for insight but all I got was bigotry, unthinking kneejerk racism and the utter banality of what I can only believe now to be the wilfully malign.
I agree completely Jo - I think most of those you talk about on the right are thinking about short term gratification rather than long term success. History has many lessons and these shouldn?t be ignored. Trying to get an insight into what these people think is futile. In my opinion much of the blame must be laid at the door of the media.
Many people blindly accept what they are told by the tabloid they read, the media is the only information source for many people, the media shape reality for their readers. The Sun says that 90 days detention is just. Sun readers get the drip drip effect of this opinion every day and eventually believe it. Only when you think independently and form your own opinions do you question the logic of this approach and become capable of suggesting viable alternatives.
Sis
Thanks for that, I find it refreshing to get clarity from a legal mind now and again!
On the 90 day issue, I saw Michael Mansfield commenting on the debate the other evening on ITN news. I had the pleasure of seeing him in the Whitla Hall a fcouple of weekends ago. Did you go along yourself?
No, I have seen him before a few times at the Bloody Sunday Inquiry but I didn’t hear he was talking at Queens. Was he talking specifically about terrorism?
Sis
Yes I was there, you can read about it on JOBLOG. He was highlghting that the Inquiries Act means an end to the public inquiry as we have known it and that the Muslim community has become what the Irish community was in 1974: detested, feared, vilified, amorphously responsible for the evil acts of the few. He showed video to make his case, for those of us a little young to recall those years
A very refreshing candid evening.
Sounds like a great talk pity I missed it, he is fascinating man and a brilliant orator. Well worth his fee.
Awwwh what a nice little liberal love-in.
Sorry girls but I’m not convinced letting terrorist suspects roam the streets is the safest way to stop them blowing things (and, more importantly, people) up. I don’t know about the effectiveness of 90 days vs 28 - but the police seem to support 90 and they’d be in a better position to know than you or me, would they not?
Internment was badly implemented in Northern Ireland, if they could do it right it could be a good thing. (Not that I’m suggesting for a second the current administration could do much right)
By the way sis in law - what you seem to be saying is that the people don’t know best - in other words, democracy doesn’t work. Do you think the franchise should be restricted to a certain group of people (liberals perhaps?)?
Beano
Enough mockery, please. The balance of executive power has been successfully achived in this instance. PACE already contains provisions for extended detention where someone is believed to pose a threat to persons or propoerty. It isnt exercised. Nor is there any extensive exercising of extended detention even in the aftermath of 7/7. To want to sweep away habeus corpus will require more specific evidence that this is an absolute necesity before Parliament (elected by the people) can be as convinced as the executive (not directly elected) Go figure democracy.
And yes, I am in a better position than the police to make that judgement: todays Sunday Times shows me and anyone who wants to read it that the police dont use the powers of detention they have, but nonetheless they say they need 90 days? They need to get up a bit earlier in the morning.
Beano, I am a great fan of democracy, but that does not mean media rule. In Britain we are democratic a total of one day every 4-5 years during a general election, real democracy in its purest sense would be a nightmare. Can you imagine relying on the public to vote for every issue and law? This is why we elect representatives, to represent us, not act as our puppets. If we do not like the way they represent us they will pay the price at the next election.
You say that you do not know about the effectiveness of 90 days vs 28 but the police support 90 days and they know better. I think this is very na?ve, do you not think you should find out about the effectiveness of 90 day detention powers before supporting it?
Of course the police want 90 days, it makes their job so much easier but it does not mean that it is best for the country; if what the police wanted was always implemented people would be tried and found guilty as a result of police instinct or gut feeling, hardly a shining example of justice. Our legal system is such that the police guard our rights not decide on their substance.
There is a separation of powers in the UK and an established system of justice which dictates that Parliament and the executive formulate and execute laws while the police enforce them. Although it is not always as simple as this taking into account the role of the civil service etc., do you suggest that it be any other way?
We can take advice from the police, indeed we should do so, but this should remain advice, to be accepted or rejected according to findings after serious consideration and a weighing up of all the evidence. Do you disagree, perhaps Beano, you would feel more secure in a police state?
“You say that you do not know about the effectiveness of 90 days vs 28 but the police support 90 days and they know better. I think this is very na?ve,”
Perhaps, but I also think it naive to oppose their views on vague grounds with little evidence either. Perhaps studies should examine whether it will help the fight against terrorists or not.
You said yourself the police advice should “be accepted or rejected according to findings after serious consideration and a weighing up of all the evidence”
Where was the serious consideration or weighing up of evidence?
Slightly at a tangent here but “Beano, I am a great fan of democracy, but that does not mean media rule”
So what you’re saying is that people are too easily manipulated by the media? That suggests they shouldn’t be trusted with such an important decision as who runs the country. I’m not deliberately trying to argue for the sake of it, I’m just curious how you reconcile a distaste for bandwagon jumping populist policies with a love of democracy, because as far as I can see the two are “2 sides of the same coin”.
The evidence is that the police have such powers to detain at present - under PACE - and have not used these as the Sunday Times made clear.
Why then should they want an arbitrary “90 days” as if this was some form of panacea to terrorism?
Is it a deterrent? I think not.
Does it allow more time to extract confession? Undoubtedly, but this time can be achieved through other existing legislative means. So therefore - the case for wanting the 90 days remains to be argued - on this instance the argument was lost.
Hope that that isnt being too *naive*?
I do think that people are too easily manipulated by the media but that does not mean that they shouldn?t be trusted with deciding who runs the country, what is the alternative? I completely agree that with democracy, populist policies are a necessary evil, which does not mean that I despise democracy itself. This would be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
You do not abandon a system simply because of flaws especially flaws that are inherent in human nature itself and are unavoidable in any structure. This does not mean however that we should not try to improve any faults and make the system better.
In answer to your question Where was the serious consideration or weighing up of evidence? I am not sure whether you are asking whether I weighed up the evidence or the MPs did. So I will answer both, yes there was a weighing up of the evidence from both. I have carried out research into the effectiveness of prolonged detention powers and have found that instead of working to reduce terrorism in the long term the incidences of terrorist attacks increase. In addition, MPs in the Commons came out and said after last weeks vote that after careful consideration of the evidence they found that the extended period of detention of 14 days was ineffective and so they saw no reason to extend it to 90 days.
This is a question I have asked before but why are there special powers for terrorists? In my opinion, and in the opinion of many in the House of Lords, the problems that are faced by police in dealing with terrorists are no worse than those faced when investigating other crimes. In essence the police are arguing that they need these extended powers to cope with problems gathering information from computers, dealing with foreign suspects with different religious and language needs and the problems with the intimidation of witnesses. All of these problems are present when dealing with organised criminal gangs and these gangs, with their selling of class A drugs and other actions are more of a threat to society and kill more people than terrorists. This is a shining example of government opportunism, they saw a chance to pass harsh laws and took it.
Sis in your initial post you stated
“It is refreshing to see MPs voting according to their own beliefs and defying populist opinion.”
Do you really believe that the MPs voted according to their own beliefs? It seems likely that many of them were more interested in bringing Tony Blair down a peg or two than protecting the human rights of their constituents.
If this were the case surely the government would have been defeated before now? After all, Blair has more unpopular than this and has not been defeated in the Commons.
I do think there are some who have fundamental difficulties reconciling their beliefs with that of the current Labour Party but I also believe that asking them to vote for this extended power was a step too far for many of them. I do not think they did it solely to encourage Blair’s departure.
..having tasted PM blood, however…
You are probably right Jo, I think the real test will come with the new education reforms proposed by the government. If Blair is defeated with these it is definately time for him to go. Enter Gordo!!
…and with Gordo, hopefully some recognisably Labour policies!
My salary has been devalued more in the last 2 years than during any equivalent time I spent working under a Tory ogvernment. Disgraceful.
..and of course I would welcome Gordon’s contruibtion to the greater good of the wider population as well!