Civil liberties

[Mushroom]

In a bit of a spin-off from my "Privacy" thread, i just found this on BBC News:
BLUNKETT'S ANTI-TERROR PROPOSALS

a new anti-terrorism act merging two existing pieces of legislation from 2000 and 2001
the act could mean suicide bombers being tried and convicted before they strike
possibly lowering the burden of proof in terrorism cases from "beyond all reasonable doubt" to "on the balance of probabilities"
allowing British terror suspects to be tried at least partly in secret
creating a pool of security-vetted judges to hear sensitive evidence
appointing security-vetted lawyers to defend terror suspects, who would be prevented from hearing sensitive evidence against them
Now is it me, or is this just a few steps away from people being detained without trial because it's thought they might possibly have terrorist motives? When we get onto the track of jailing people before we know they're guilty, surely we're heading towards the paranoia on the scale that caused The Terror in Soviet Russia? I'm sure Blunkett means well with his laws, but I seriously think that the anti-terror laws that are being passed at the moment could be very damaging if someone with less benign intentions got hold of them.
Should we be concerned that the right to a fair trial is being steered about, or is it all worth it in the name of national security?

[NIGHTCOW]

This is a pretty disturbing development. If Saddam Hussein can be given a fair hearing then surely people who haven't even committed a crime deserve at least this right. Even if intentions are benign, i still sets a precedent that subsequent home secretaries must follow and then they might 'tighten up' the terrorism laws further, setting further precedents. In the end all you have is an Orwellian future where even considering action against the establishment is punishable.

[CapitalismIsPoo]

How to stop, or extremely diffuse, terrorism:

1) Stop funding Israel.

2) Send tons of humanitarian aide, and leave if they wish us to.

3) STOP BOMBING THEM!!!!

[squealpiggy]

1) You don't understand this issue at all.
2) You don't understand this issue at all.
3) You don't understand this issue at all.

The trouble is that real life is more complicated than soundbites and stopping "funding" Israel would only lead to bigger problems in the region, sending more aid and leaving would only lead the people who mastermind the terrorists onto the next part of their aims and who exactly do you propose we stop bombing?

[renatzu]

I agree with squealpiggy, don't pass judgement on things you don't understand. These people will despise no matter how much aid we send.

Back to Blunkett's proposals, it's all about fear. Bush and Blair have made everyone paranoid, they want us to think that the terrorists are at our doorsteps and ready to pounce.
If this is passed then the U.K. will move closer to the U.S. (people being detained in Cuba without charge, access to a lawyer, or a trial).

[squealpiggy]

I'm just glad I'll be living in Canada before all this happens.

[CapitalismIsPoo]

Osama has said they are pissed because we bomb over there all the time and because we fund Israel. I dont see justification in funding a nation that breaks U.N. violations and shooting kids in the head for throwing rocks at tanks anyways. Maybe if, oh i dont know, Israel didn't steal the land, it wouldnt be a problem in the first place. And you cannot defeat terrorism with violence, that only makes it worse (look at the Israeli/Palestinean conflict)... we have to defeat their hatred, THEN we defeat terrorism.

[notmarcie]

Would you like to point out where we are bombing in Israel or Palestine ?

Your understanding of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict isn't very good. Its a bit more complex than 'stealing land'. Also if Palectinians didn't chose to use their children as human shields when throwing grenades at tanks the children would be less likely to be shot.

I am not pro Israeli, I despise Sharon. I am actually quite pro Palestine, but its not a case of good Palestinians and bad Israelis.

[Mushroom]

I don't wish to spoil a good debate, but i believe the israel/palestine argument has already been done in another thread (possibly)?
The debate is whether it can be justified to erode our civil liberties in the likes of the right to a free trial in the name of national security
</shovebackoncourse>

[plattbridger]

well to befair blunket has been holding some "terrorist prisioners" for some considerable time without a charge or court date set

meh ill worry about it when ive been wrongfully arrested- DOWN WITH PROACTIVITY

and i agree with notmarcie although weapons are one of britains largest exports (along with china clay which we even sell to china oh the irony) and we also played a major part in the setting up of the israeli state

but its not about that!

[notmarcie]

I disagree with the proposed legislation. (Hey even the Patriot Act looks to be unconsitutional).

How can a fair trial be held if not every party is um, party to al the evidence. Or is the concept of a fair trial not required if we think they are a bad guy ?

On the basis of this then, in theory I could be tried as a terror suspect because of my past involvement in animal rights activism (I didn't have anything to do with any of the Huntingdon Life Science violence) and because I was given money for animal right groups, some of whom were linked to the ALF.

The suicide bombers section is slightly bizzare as this has never been an issue in the UK (not that I recall), and seems to be a direct kneejerk response to Israel rather than based on UK reality.

I agree Mushroom, that this seems to be getting close to detaining people without trial, and as Internment in Northern Ireland shows, it doesn't do a lot to stop acts of terrorism.

[squealpiggy]

I wonder why there has never been a suicide bomber in Britain? Maybe over here you just have too damn much to live for.

[Cheeky Prophet]

I don't think this could be passed.. I don't know much about it, but it seems like it would be violating rights guaranteed but the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.. but I'm not entirely sure.. I'll get back to you on that.

[squealpiggy]

It could be passed but you could challenge it by applying to the European court. Unfortunately it is unlikely that you can do that because you are refused access to lawyers.

[Dr-Electro]

It appears to be a blatant undercutting of your civil liberties. Take Blunkett out and tar and feather him! (Not really, that would violate HIS civil liberties.)

Fight that proposal with every tool you have available. If something like that passes, it could (please note that I wrote COULD, not WILL) begin curtailing your individual rights as a citizen.

The intent behind such a proposal is good, if not admirable, in its patriotic zeal. The only problem is, today's patriotism, if it goes unchecked, can become tomorrow's totalitarianism. No politician in the world is immune to temptation and the attraction of power. If they were, they would not be in politics!

That means that some time down the road, you could wind up with a parliament whose majority are dishonest, power-hungry, would-be usurpers. By that I mean that they want to take over everything for themselves and rule of law be damned. They would be able to cite Blunkett as a precedent and go from there, destroying all your precious personal freedoms in the name of the state. If that sounds a bit like Nazi Germany, well, it should.

I am never the one to call my British friends Nazis, but if you don't keep a firm rien on your government today, you could wind up with a lying asshole like Bush for your PM. He could wind up with a bunch of lying assholes in his government who would blindly back all his policies and lie to you about everything they are doing. I would honestly be heartbroken to see that happen. I like you guys!

To foil the misguided proposal, write to your MPs, call their local offices, send them e-mails and look for organized groups opposed to his ideas. Lobby Parliament through those established groups and make noise in the press. Write letters to the editors of every newspaper that has any influence at all. The politicos even read the letters sections in the Sun and Mirror, so write there too.

Fight the well-intentioned zealot now before his misguided ideas put you all in chains.

(Sorry, I can't run for PM or MP, I'm an American dragon!)

[plattbridger]

i think so long as the UK is in the EU and UN and doesnt scrap existing british human rights and privacy laws either then we should be alright

thats even if such a bill where to get past the first reading