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.

No to 42 - 1 comment

So many issues seem to have gone by without my comment, recently, but I'd rather not add the issue of the detention of terrorist suspects to the list. That said, Bob Piper has perfectly summed up for me the bloody-mindedness of the entire plan to go out on an international limb (so to speak), and increase the limit from 28 days to 42:

One of the most futile aspects of what is termed 'The Great War' was the trench warfare that claimed so many lives.

Armies dug into trenches fought for months on end over the control of a series of fields. Tens of thousands of men lost their lives and when you look back on it you have to think, why? What was that all about?

So it seems with 42 day detention orders. Of course, not in the degree of severity as the shocking conflict in the Somme and elsewhere, but in terms of the futility of the whole exercise.

Before Gordon Brown and his Home Secretary decide to order their troops to go over the top, the Generals should be asking the Chief of Staff.... why are we doing this? The cannon fodder should refuse to leave the treenches unless they get answers a bloody sight better than we have had so far [...]

The Government is busy making concessions to the anticipated Labour rebels, still without explaining why the UK needs a measure at all that goes far, far further than those taken by those liberal democracies who, by their very nature, are terrorist targets. It's thoroughly mystifying; justifiably concerning to the many political liberals who expect to be at home within the Labour Party; and if a defeat does prompt a no-confidence vote in the Prime Minister or Government, it would represent a staggeringly unnecessary own-goal, over an issue that means little to voters, and doesn't encapsulate any ideological principle of ours. The whole business is a vote-loser from start to finish.

As a matter of principle I have to hope the Labour rebels stand firm. Even if the immediate consequences for the Prime Minister are bad, the sooner the Government ends its obsession with unnecessary, grandiose, and illiberal criminal justice legislation, and focusses its entire attention on addressing the UK's social ills, and empowering the population - things that are achievable (if hard) and which can improve the lives (and win the votes) of millions.