UK's plan to allow for arbitrary 42-day imprisonment without charge is dead(ish)
Amnesty UK's Damian sends us Terrorism, Security and Human Rights, "a brilliant film attacking the way in which we are sleepwalking in the UK into abuses of human rights. Released on the day that the House of Lords is categorically destroying the 'argument' for extending the period people can be locked up without charge in the UK from 28 days to 42. Compare with 2 days in the US."
Better yet, according to the Guardian, the plan to allow for 42 day arbitrary imprisonment is now mostly dead.
Gordon Brown tonight abandoned his parliamentary battle to allow police to detain terror suspects without charge for up to 42 days, after the Lords overwhelmingly rejected the proposal by 191 votes. In an emergency statement to MPs tonight, Jacqui Smith, the home secretary, said that the counter-terrorism bill would continue its journey through parliament without the 42 day measure.Terrorism, Security and Human Rights, Government forced to drop 42 day detention plan (Thanks, Damian!)But in a face saving gesture, the government will publish a bill containing the 42 day plan; this bill will be held in reserve to be introduced should there be a terrorist emergency. Ministers said they had decided to follow this course because the introduction of the counter-terrorism bill would have been delayed by a year if the government had embarked on a lengthy battle with the Lords.
the latest
latest episodes
The Entrenched Nobility: working against big government since 1215.
"should there be a terrorist emergency" Hmmm, my understanding is limited to "Yes Minister", but I imagine a "terrorist emergency" would include people voting incorrectly.
The silly part of this extension is that nobody wants it. The citizens don't want it, the police don't want it (they have never released anybody because of the 28 day limit; everybody has been charged or released long before that). The cabinet keeps banging on about how important it is yet never gets around to explaining why.
And now they're admitting outright that they're going to wait for a time when fear will let them pass it. Still with no particular reason.
Nice to see that the UK government is continuing in its finest traditions of insanity. I for one would not like to be governed by somebody who was able to count up to tree.
To my own shame, this is the first time I've seriously thought about joining Amnesty International.
Funny how it all seem so much more real when it's happening in your own country.
I still find it weird that our essential liberties at being protected by an unelected chamber. Every time they do something like this, I question again my fundamental belief that the Lords should be replaced by an elected second house. I think such a thing would only be safe if the UK has a fundamental US style constitution and a court enacted to protected it.
As a democrat and republican (i.e. I believe in democracies and the end of the monarchy), this is rather an odd position to take.
Paul
Glad to see that reason won out here. Though the fact is that as long as the government reserve the right to employ forty-two day detention in a "terrorist emergency" (more hiding behind predictions of unknown future crises, rather than basing proposals on evidence of past crises), the battle is not over.
Until they understand that the objection to 42 days is based on the importance of protecting inalienable human rights (such as the right to a fair trial, etc), and not on practicalities or a lack of gusto, this proposal will never go away.
Unless, of course, they somehow manage to "win" the "war" on "terror". Good luck with that.
Good news, I suppose; but anyone could still be locked up for a month with no immediate justification. Hurrah.
You might have heard the UK is to spend £12 billion on extra spying. Someone on slashdot posted a comment that summed up my opinion rather well. I think it's still relevant in this context.
The war on terror has little to do with it.
The Labour government brought in an anti terrorism act in 1974 following the Birmingham pub bombings. The act was designed to be temporary, only as long as the terrorism problem in Northern Ireland remained, and had to be renewed with a vote in parliament each year.
Throughout the 80s and 90s the Labour opposition voted against the renewal of the act. In 1994 they voted against it on the same day the IRA fired 5 mortar bombs in to Heathrow airport. Tony Blair was then shadow Home Secretary and led Labour's no vote.
In 2000, after the Northern Ireland ceasefire, and before 9/11, Blair's new Labour government introduced a permanent anti-terrorism act.
In 2000 the terrorism threat against Britain was lower than it had been for 30 years. That's when Labour chose to strengthen the legislation and give the government more powers.
how come Amnesty is lobbying in the UK? I thought that the UK chapter would be prohibited from engaging in lobbying, following the principle that Amnesty mobilizes opinion in OTHER COUNTRIES.
When did that change? Are there any limits to what Amnesty will do in terms of in-country lobbying by it's own chapters?
From Magna Carta to Magna Crappa.
The House of Lords is the court empowered to protect the fundamental principles of UK law. Specifically, those Lords who are also qualified as lawyers are the Law Lords, who are the ultimate court of appeal in the UK (except for those things covered by the EU courts). They routinely throw out sections of Acts of Parliament (ten years after they're passed, when the cases finally work their way through the courts). This is their primary function in the UK government.
The US has already shown that a "US style constitution" means nothing, since it can be disregarded or reinterpreted at whim. Common law accomplishes the same thing already.
The ludicrous thing about the "but we need it in reserve for a terrorist emergency" is that, as I understand it, the British government ALREADY has such powers in case of a "national emergency". Possibly a "terrorist emergency" is different to this? By being less clearly defined?
w00t!
Wait - what else is in that "counter-terrorism" bill? More asset forfeiture?
Well, as the crazy anarchist at work has pointed out, this 42 day story is somewhat moot, given that in a "real emergency", the Civil Contingencies Act gives the government emergency powers to pass any legislation they like, with no delay (barring brief consultation with the Queen, which can be omitted if it would take too long).
A state of emergency has "only" been declared 5 times since WW II. The last time was in 1974, when they passed the first Counter-Terrorism Act in just one day.
Of course the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act of 1939 gave them the power to do just about anything, and was invoked extensively during WW II (and repealed in 1959, but stands as a template for a future situation).
Then again, secret plans were in place for local government to be replaced by the military in the case of nuclear bombardment. A BBC film depicting such a situation was even "not licensed for broadcast use" for being a little too close to home.
Now, can you imagine if the U.K. actually acted like Dubya in declaring a "state of war"? I'm very, very glad they didn't, and that by their actions they've affirmed that the "war on terror" is nothing but rhetoric.