Extremist politics - no comments

Muslim convert 'recruits' inmates:

A former British National Party activist who converted to Islam in prison is trying to radicalise young prisoners, the BBC can reveal.

I'm deliberately avoiding use of the term 'fascist', but doesn't this tell you all you need to know about those whose currency is political hate, whether on the 'left' or 'right'? Once the contempt for the mass of the population is there, trivial political and religious differences like these can easily be rationalised away.

Steve Gough, vice-chairman of the Prison Officers Association (POA), said the organisation had been worried about the situation for a number of years.

"This shows what we've been saying. If you can get someone that's so right wing converted then a normal prisoner is going to have absolutely no chance," he said.

Which is probably about the same amount of faith in the human race I'd expect from a Prison Officer.

Still no to 42 - 1 comment

Sadly the Government has still not managed to make a reasonable case for the extension of the detention-without-trial limit. If they cannot satisfy our concerns about the human rights of suspects; cannot provide any evidence that the extension from 28 days to 42 has ever, or is likely either to prevent terrorist incidents or to substantially increase the chances of information being extracted; and cannot provide any assurance that 42 would be a binding upper limit; then the proposal ought to be thrown out with as little fuss as possible.

Offering 'concessions' seems to completely miss the point. Whether you prefer to oppose 42 on principle, or over its likelihood of success, the whole idea of concessions seems irrelevant to the issue at hand, and, if anything, adds insult to injury.

The fact that the Prime Minister has staked his authority upon the vote is a problem he has made entirely for himself. The fact that the Conservatives and minor parties might profit - in the very short term, as Frank Dobson argues - is an unfortunate but necessary evil.

According to YouGov, 69% of the public supports raising the detention limit to 42 days "in exceptional circumstances". Firstly, the 700-odd people who stated this opinion are foolish to do so, but they can hardly be blamed for telling a pollster that they might agree to limit their own rights when the issue is not close to home, when alternatives have not been proposed, and when the issues have not seriously debated with them. What's more: they're no more foolish than those who cannot see that "exceptional circumstances" means different things to different people. Such circumstances appear to be the case right now for some; while for others, only some distant war might fit the bill. One doesn't need to be in denial of the terrorist threat to dismiss this argument; those who cite "exceptional circumstances" are responsible for clarifying what these circumstances are.

As it stands, the poll resolves nothing, thus honest commentators will take it with an appropriate shovel of salt.

The Telegraph continues:

The Government's case was boosted when Baroness Park, a Tory peer and former senior MI6 officer, came out in support of stronger detention powers. She told The Telegraph that the "frightening" scale and complexity of the global Islamic terrorist threat made the new laws a necessity.

"Everyone who knows the difficulties of investigating it is convinced," she said, adding that David Cameron and the Conservative leadership were wrong to be opposing the measures.

Needless to say, what 'frightens' a campaigner for a cause might not frighten a neutral party. The death cult that is Islamist terrorism is a pressing threat to any country, and to any individual (especially Muslims) that favours freedom, tolerance, and what makes human beings human. But Baroness Park's job is not merely to convince the Government, or the Conservatives, of the danger, but other Western politicians, plenty of whom are equally forthright in their opposition to terror, but who have not so far found the need to extend detention without trial. Let us take a cautious approach, then: once Baroness Park and the Government have begun to win over other politicians to their case, we can revisit the extension proposal. Until then, we treat her opinion as one among many.

Luke Akehurst makes the point, in supporting the Government's move, that the need to prevent atrocities is more pressing than concern for the liberty of suspects. Now, I am prepared to believe that the security services wouldn't abuse these powers in general. Sadly, this faith is not binding upon the security services, who are beyond my control, and your control too. The reason we have codified liberties is because all of us have a right to a private space, free of encroachment, and to protect us from good people as well as bad, because even 'well-meaning' States, authorities, and individuals cannot be relied upon to respect us. No need to invoke Shami Chakrabarti, or even George Orwell, here.

The Government's on much safer ground with its deradicalisation plan, via Norm.

P.S. This post delayed, due to Blogger, once again, refusing to play ball.