“In this time of heightened security”, as the announcement I keep hearing at train stations around the capital describes it (surely that’s the wrong way round, by the way: isn’t this a time of heightened risk?) you could argue, if you were an overly cynical individual, that an unpopular government mired in an unpopular war half way around the world would be absolutely relishing the opportunity to push through all sorts of anti-democratic unpopular legislation with little or no dissent from their own party, and nothing but ringing endorsements from the opposition. Don’t support the introduction of ID cards, or the unilateral police decision to introduce a policy of Stop And Search And Shoot To Kill Without Warning If You Look A Bit Foreign And Happen To Be In The Wrong Place At The Wrong Time?
Why, anyone who objects must be a terrorist themselves, or a supporter of terror.
Yesterday, we lost the right to peacefully protest in a half-mile “exclusion zone” around Westminster. This new, and surprisingly underreported, law was rushed through in June, and came into effect yesterday. Hey, what price democracy when Tony Blair and Charles Clarke find Brian Haw a bit “distracting”? (Ironically, the law as it stands doesn’t actually apply to Mr Haw, after he won an injunction last week on the basis that the new law requires those organising protests in the zone to have “authorisation for the demonstration… under section 131(2), when the demonstration starts“. Given that his protest started four years ago, he gets to stay. Well, that’s what happens when you rush a piece of legislation through the house without thinking it through, I suppose.)
And what price civil liberties and human rights, when you have 2001’s Anti Terrorism Crime and Security Act to allow foreign nationals to be detained indefinitely without trial? Or when you are seeking to increase the limit on the amount of time the police can hold terrorism suspects of any nationality without bringing charges from 14 days to three months?
Carry on, says Tony Blair. Just don’t mind us while we make a few changes round here…
And yet, in the eyes of some Americans, Britain isn’t doing enough – you might be interested/infuriated to read: http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/07/25/londonistan/
Oh, I see. Apparently “Britain has insisted on applying the law and procedures of the criminal justice system to terrorists”. How silly of us!
Not as “silly” as you think.
No, sorry, I’m not quite sure what you mean. You did realise that I was being sarcastic, didn’t you?
I was interested to see here that LB was disagreeing with Matt’s premise – that it is silly of us to apply the law and procedures of the criminal justice system.
I’m delighted to see that LB is disagreeing with this premise, and therefore by his/her own logic feels that it is NOT silly of us to uphold the law. There I was worrying that many Americans were losing respect for the rule of law and basic human rights! Phew.