Campaign against 42 days extension
The government will try and push its Counter Terrorism Bill through parliament in the next few weeks. This bill includes the provision to hold someone in detention, without charging them, for 42 days – a two week increase on the current limit of 28 days. Unsurprisingly, New Labour has been trying to paint this extension of police powers in benign terms. But we should not be fooled. Why? Because:
Despite vague allusions to ‘emergencies,’ the reality of the new proposals is that the Home Secretary can activate these powers at any time. There is no need for a public emergency of the type often drawn upon by government ministers; the ‘nightmare scenario’ of police overwhelmed by multiple terror plots. Indeed, an individual case can be trigger enough. Parliamentary safeguards proposed are anything but. The Home Secretary only has to inform Parliament that she has triggered the 42-day limit. Parliament will only be allowed to a vote up to 30 days later and then only if the government is seeking to renew the powers for another 30 days – by which time suspects could have already been held for six weeks. Further, even if used unlawfully, the decision to trigger the 42-day limit cannot be challenged and the power could not be struck down.
We have to try and oppose this draconian piece of legislation by:
1) Raising awareness that the vote is coming to parliament soon
2) Encouraging people to write to their MPs opposing this bill.
3) Informing of events, protests or publicity stunts on the issue.
4) Generate and share ideas on what we can do.
So far, we have: a Facebook group designed to raise awareness; a Downing St. petition against it; a basic list of public figures opposing it. Clearly, this is not enough.
The problem is that the home secretary has been doing a lot of arm-twisting over the past few weeks and there’s a threat going around to Labour MPs who dare to help the government lose its first big vote. I have a bad feeling this will go through.
If we are serious about opposing this latest attack on our civil liberties, we have to do more. So, here goes:
1) We are going to blog this issue regularly (from now until the vote) along with OurKingdom. Please join our campaign by doing the same!
2) Compass is asking for submissions to a consultation. Add your views (until 15th).
3) I’ll soon publish a list of MPs who opposed the 90 days extention. It’s best we put pressure on them specifically.
4) Ideas or suggestions for a publicity stunt later this month welcome!
5) An event is planned later this month at City Circle. Will let you know more soon.
Opt in
Give ‘em before Grave-robber Gordon takes ‘em: Become an organ donor.
Swiftboats and Fixed Terms
With the Christmas festivities safely concluded, I’ve decided to take a little time out from some truly excellent Christmas reading – Christopher Hitchens’ “Portable Atheist” is well worth the investment in book tokens – to tackle one of the most risible pieces of hypocritical political sophistry I’ve seen in some considerable time…
…Iain Dale’s ‘campaign‘ for fixed term parliaments.
Like Matthew Sinclair, I’m by no means averse to the idea of fixed parliamentary terms, but unlike Iain and other new found Tory converts to the ’cause’ of constitutional reform I actually understand the workings of the British constitution, in theory and practice, well enough to appreciate that the introduction of even a seemingly simple innovation, like fixed parliamentary terms, would require a significant restructuring of our entire constitutional settlement in order to prove workable, not least in necessitating a far greater and more substantive separation between the executive and legislature than has existed at any time since the English Civil War. continue reading… »
Against ContactPoint: To Be Continued
Before I become blissfully chained to my sumptuous new cooker for at least the next ten days, a quick update on ContactPoint (the “children’s index”) and related “database state” issues. I’ve written here (and here and here) about this forthcoming information sharing e-system and why I – and others – fear it may have the opposite effect to that the government desires
In theory, ContactPoint will enable public sector professionals to better anticipate when children are at risk of harm and to respond in a more coordinated way when intervention is required. In practice, say its critics, such professionals will spend an awful lot of time at computer terminals following false trails of misleading information while the fear of breach of privacy – of up to around 300 people they’ve never met “knowing their business” online – will deter the very children and families most in need of help from seeking or accepting it
In my last piece on this subject for Liberal Conspiracy I reported that ministers might be adjusting their sales pitch for ContactPoint, replacing vaguely shroud-waving references to the Victoria Climbie tragedy with less emotive talk of general practitioner efficiency. However, during her damage limitation exercise over the latest disappearing data embarrassment – those British learner drivers’ details that got lost across the pond – Ruth Kelly directly invoked Climbie when appearing on Newsnight (thank you, ARCH blog) and I heard her on Five Live asserting that the public would rightly be appalled if information wasn’t shared in relation to child protection.
Well, her last point is indisputable taken in isolation: of course relevant child welfare professionals working on the same case need to know what each other are doing. But, whatever the top brass of the Association of Directors of Children’s Services claim, a national database of dubious reliability and questionable security, compulsorily compiled and run by local authorities without parental consent being required seems precisely the wrong way of going about it.
How can we best mobilise opinion against ContactPoint? It seems to me that simply howling “Big Brother” isn’t enough. We need to show that e-government in all its form risks creating greater dangers to individuals and to society than it prevents. ContactPoint is a good example of this, and I urge readers to join the Facebook group I’ve formed to oppose it. Lobby your MP too, and lend your support to Annette Brookes MP, the Liberal Democrats’ spokesperson on children’s issues.
But let’s look at the wider picture as well. Guardian technology correspondent Michael Cross has recently argued for a far more open and political debate about e-government, taking in everything from ID cards to NHS records. He rightly observes that the public has been given no clear idea about the growth of e-government, how best to make it work and what its true implications might be. One of my New Year resolutions will be to encourage that debate in 2008. Maybe it will be one of yours too.
Red tape and murder
David Miliband is the Minister responsible for Government policy towards its Iraqi ex-employees, including those in fear of their lives.
In a recent webchat on the Number 10 website, Mr Miliband was asked the following question by Justin McKeating: “I would like to ask the Foreign Secretary why the assistance being offered to locally employed staff in Iraq, who are being threatened with reprisals – including torture and death – from local militias, is being rationed according to length of service. Isn’t it perfectly possible for an Iraqi employee who has only been employed for five months to face the same dangers as a colleague who has been employed for twelve months or longer?”
To which he replied “The scheme is open to all existing staff whatever their length of service. For previous staff who no longer work for us, there is a 12 month criteria. I think this gets the balance right. The fortitude of civilian staff alongside military forces has been amazing on the part both of British staff and locally employed staff. The new scheme tries to recognise this.”
Just how good a job of recognising it was noted in The Times yesterday.
continue reading… »
28 days: Can a Labour revolt work?
Jacqui Smith’s campaign may yet hit some hurdles if this works:
The former health secretary Frank Dobson is rallying opposition among Labour MPs for a full-scale revolt against Gordon Brown’s proposal to allow suspected terrorists to be detained without charge for up to 42 days. [hat tip: Leon]
Frank Dobson is leading 49 Labour MPs in revolt; can anyone get us their names? There are still people in the party with a conscience, at least. Even the head of MI5, Jonathan Evans, doesn’t see the need to extend past 28 days. The home secretary can’t get anyone to support her plans and yet she soldiers on. Why is this Labour government hell-bent on generating ill-will with its supporters? Friday’s Indy was spot-on when it called this an “unhealthy obsession with counting the days“.
The Facebook group we launched on Friday has grown to over 1,300 1,400 over the weekend. Use that or this blog to throw out ideas, links or other ways to contribute to this campaign. And if you haven’t already, please sign the Amnesty International petition on the Downing st website and spread the word. Blogger Liam has made some blog buttons which you can see / use from here. If you have more ideas for buttons or raising awareness of this campaign, get in touch or leave a message underneath.
A Downing St petition
Amnesty International have launched an e-petition against government plans to extend pre-charge detention from 28 days. Do take out 10 seconds and sign it..
The Facebook group has grown by over 500 members since yesterday and AI haven’t even begun promoting it yet. Yesterday, Nick Clegg condemned Jacqui Smith’s plans to extend it to 42 days. I hope the Libdems and Tories join forces on this one to defeat the government.
So, what can we do and what is the point of a Facebook group where Liberty’s lobbying failed? Well, this campaign isn’t over yet simply because the home secretary has scaled down her plans from 56 to 42 days. The bill still has to be passed doesn’t it? Secondly, the point of our online campaign on Facebook and blogs is to raise awareness of this issue and get like-minded people together on an issue. From there, we have to find ways to break out of this small world and take the campaign out there in innovative ways. In other words, getting people to join a Facebook group is not an end in itself, but a potentially useful space to bring people together and see if anyone has innovative ideas to take this further.
Campaign page
42 Days Later
So it seems that forty-two is not only the ultimate answer to life, the universe and everything, but also (suddenly) the government’s favoured proposal for extending the maximum period during which a suspected terrorist can be held and interviewed without charge…
… and in the best traditions of Deep Thought, the fictional supercomputer who provided the ultimate answer, the government’s own answer to the question of how long the state should be able legally justify holding a suspected terrorist without bringing charges bring us no closer to an understanding of their own ultimate question -
Why is such a protracted period of detention without charge, the longest of any Western liberal democracy – if one excludes the extra-judicial detentions at Guantanamo Bay from consideration – (allegedly) necessary?
In commenting on this latest bid in the game of ‘Play your suspension of habeas corpus right’, one has to sincerely hope that Fraser Nelson is consciously playing dumb for effect in querying how the government arrived at the number 42, although perhaps even he thinks that the obvious suggestion that this may derive from nothing more substantial than the time-honoured haggling practice of ’splitting the difference’ is stretching credibility a little too far.
Personally, I wouldn’t be quite so sure.
continue reading… »
28 days: The campaign gathers pace
I’ve written quite a few times on our campaign to try and stop the government from extending the 28 days pre-charge detention period. From today this campaign moves into second gear.
We’re starting with Facebook. For that, we’ve teamed up with Amnesty International, OurKingdom and City Circle to raise awareness of the issue and spread the word. Please join the group and invite your friends!
Update: The home secretary has today backed away from 56/58 days and now wants to push for 42 days. Without convincing anyone or having the evidence for it. It’s a farce.
Against ContactPoint: Latest
The 10 Downing Street petition against the planned database on children – which I wrote about here on Monday – now has over 1,000 names. It’s open until 20th December. Sign now and while you’re in fighting mood urge your MP to sign the Early Day Motion of Annette Brooke MP, Lib Dem spokesperson on children, asking the government to “reconsider its decision to proceed” with the scheme. You could raise the matter with your local schoolteachers too.
I’ve had an indication that the government may be adjusting its defence of ContactPoint. A correspondent tells me of a colleague who wrote to Ed Balls mentioning the invoking by ministers of the Victoria Climbie case as the primary reason for the database being set up. Beverley Hughes has been especially quick to do this as a way of countering critics. I’m told Balls’s reply included the following;
“In your letter, you assert the Government is introducing ContactPoint chiefly to prevent another terrible case like that of Victoria Climbie. This is not the case. The chief purpose of ContactPoint is to improve the efficiency of children’s services by freeing up practitioner time.”
My correspondent remarks that offering bureaucratic convenience as justification for reducing family privacy is unacceptable. Agreed. The same source also remarks:
“The government comments fail to mention that if you want to know a child’s GP school, etc YOU CAN ASK THE CHILD OR PARENT. They keep talking as if there were no other route than IT. It’s worth reminding people that the old fashioned low-tech solution of being polite and asking is still a viable option. Some LAs [local authorities] report [during pilot schemes] that users don’t know who they are in contact with. We should not ask families to give up privacy to compensate for incompetent professional practice.”
Agreed again. ContactPoint is a dud. And I haven’t even mentioned E-Caf yet.
Campaign page
28 days: Select committee not in favour either
The Guardian is reporting today that the home affairs select committee is broadly not in favour of extending pre-charge detention past 28 days either!
“It’s not going to be supportive of the suggestion of an extension of 28 days,” a source close to the confidential report told Guardian Unlimited. “The general gist is that there is no evidence suggesting we can go beyond 28 days.”
The Financial Times broke the story. I have I’ll have more updates on this campaign in a day or two.
Dump The ContactPoint Database
ContactPoint is a government database-in-waiting. It is bad news for all eleven million children in England and their families, especially those in need of public service professionals’ help or protection. Formerly known as the Information Sharing Index and (colloquially) “the Children’s Index”, it is officially described as, “The quick way for a practitioner to find out who else is working with the same child or young person making it easier to deliver more coordinated support.” Others see it differently. Far from being a “basic online directory” helping teachers, social workers, doctors, youth offending teams and others keep in touch more efficiently, they believe that the very existence of ContactPoint risks making it not more but less likely that children in danger of neglect or abuse will get the support they need.
Why? A group comprising experts in child protection, children’s rights and IT security produced a report for the Information Commissioner. The core of their case against ContactPoint and other databases for the logging of information about kids is that such screening and sharing of social indicators – family circumstances, health records, school performance etc – is an unreliable predictor of children being “at risk” of harm or engaging in antisocial behaviour. What’s more, it might generate self-fulfilling prophecies by putting poorer children and their families under unwarranted scrutiny. Also, it is likely to work against creating the bonds of trust that are so vital if effective help is to be accepted by and given to those who genuinely need it. They also doubt that ContactPoint would be secure – an argument likely to carry greater force in view of recent cases of discs disappearing from HMRC and the DWP.
Last week I wrote here that campaigns against erosions of civil liberties are more likely to gain widespread support if connections are made between every day “common good” issues and the principle of protecting the citizen from state intrusion. It’s not enough to be affronted by government “nannying” or to mutter darkly about Big Brother. We need to show that the database state and other curbs on privacy and freedom do more harm – possibly serious harm – than good. ContactPoint is a clear example of this. At best the system will result in professionals whose job it is to keep vulnerable children and families safe spending more and more time chasing false leads on computer screens. At worst, it will damage those most in need.
My slightly longer piece on this subject appeared on Cif last week and I wrote about it in detail about a year ago (the latter is now slightly out of date, but the key arguments still hold). The good news is that a review into ContactPoint’s security has been ordered, enabling the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives to ask more fundamental questions about the scheme. I think it’s a dud. If you agree, sign this Downing Street petition and spread the word.
Campaign alert – Miliband webchat scheduled
Apropos of Dan Hardie’s latest update on the conditions facing current and former Iraqi employees of UK forces in the Basra area, I’ve been informed that the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, will be taking part in a live web chat on Friday 30th November, starting at 13:45.
This is an obvious chance to raise questions about the government’s hitherto poor response to this issue – they’ve, so far, offered these people nothing they wouldn’t be entitled to if recognised as a refugee by UNHCR – with one of Ministers responsible and challenge the government to do better – or should I say live up to their moral responsibilities and do the right thing.
continue reading… »
We cannot let them die
I’ve had emails from three people who claim to be – and who almost certainly are- Iraqi former employees of the British Government. All three say that they and their former colleagues are still at risk of death for their ‘collaboration’.
We’ll call the first man Employee One. He worked for the British for three years: “I started in the beginning of the war with Commandos (in 30 of March 2003) then continued with 23 Pioneer Regt, and in 08 / 07 / 2003 I have joined the Labour Support Unit (LSU)”. His British friends knew him as Chris. The British Government has announced that he can apply for help if he can transport himself to the British base outside Basra, or to the Embassies in Syria or Jordan. It doesn’t seem to occur to anyone that there might be problems with this.
I can email and telephone this man: so can any Foreign Office official. It should not be impossible to verify his story and then send him the funds he needs to get to a less unsafe Arab country. But that is not happening. Here’s an email exchange we had the other day.
1) Are you still in Iraq?
“Yes, I’m still hidden in somewhere in the hell of Basra.”
continue reading… »
28 days: Two new reports against extending
As you can probably gather I am actively trying to build up resources, gather information and be more pro-active in the campaign against extending the 28 days pre-charge detention period. Feel free to use this button on your blog or change it around. I’ll be posting more buttons soon.
Today, two new reports will put more pressure on the government.
In separate reports, Amnesty International [here] and Justice [here] both said there was no case for extending the current limit of 28 days — higher than any other European Union state or the United States — for the detention of terrorism suspects. Amnesty set out 10 reasons why extending pre-charge detention was unjustified while Justice said that U.S. laws limiting detention to 48 hours have not stymied terrorism investigations there.
I can’t find either report though, anyone have links? In the Guardian today Marcel Berlins calls Brown’s obsession with extending the 28 days “increasingly incomprehensible”.
Yesterday, Henry Porter’s latest column was bang on the money:
What is needed – and here I hope someone is listening – is a mass movement on the lines of the Countryside Alliance, which goes across all parties and absorbs the skills and expertise of countless activists. Now is the moment to create a movement in defence of our privacy, security and freedom.
He’s referring to campaigning against ID cards but this equally applies to this. Anthony Barnett from OurKingdom and Lynne Featherstone MP are willing to sign up. Are you?
Campaign page
28 days: List of names against extension
This will become a constantly updated list of public figures against extending the 28 days pre-charge detention period. Please mention those you think are relevant (with links) in the comments below.
All Conservative party members?
All Liberal Democrat members?
(There will be a separate post for Labour MPs)
Lord Goldsmith, former attorney general
“There needs to be a limit to this. And while any limit is arbitrary I thought that we were really in the right place with the decision the Commons ultimately took.” …He saw “no evidence to go beyond 28 days”. [The Guardian]
Ken Macdonald, director of public prosecutions and head of CPS
“It seems to us 28 days has been effective and has provided us with powers, supervised by the courts, that have been useful to us.” [The Guardian]
Lord Woolf, former lord chief justice
“I like very many other people have not been convinced by the case for increasing the period. … I would prefer, myself, to allow them to be charged and if, after they are charged, so that they know what they are facing, they are still subject to questioning, albeit in custody.” [The Guardian]
Jonathan Evans, head of MI5
He refused to say whether he backed the proposal and was described as “distinctly unenthusiastic” by one of those present. [The Telegraph]
Baroness Scotland of Asthal, QC
[The Times]
Vera Baird QC, solicitor-general
Also believes the case has not yet been made. [The Times]
Lord Falconer, former lord chancellor
Does not believe the government had made a coherent case for the extension, and that it would not be justifiable to extend detention beyond 28 days simply because further time was needed to investigate an individual suspect in a complex case. [The Guardian]
Parliament
Joint Committee on Human Rights and Commons Home Affairs Select Committee
[The Guardian]
In the news: The Home Secretary has admitted that there has not been one single case since 9/11 when police enquiries would have been aided by holding a terror suspect for more than 28 days.
Campaign to stop extension of 28 days detention
I am, like many others, alarmed at this government’s repeated attempts to extend the detention-without-charge period for more than 28 days. It is already the longest in the world. New Labour is becoming addicted to authoritarian legislation and we need to actively challenge that.
I’d like to start by exploring what part blogs can play in being part of a broader coalition to challenge the government on this issue.
We could start by collecting information that supports our cause.
- What are the alternatives to extending 28 days?
- Who opposes this extension and what have they said?
- Which journalists and commentators are also opposed?
- What other organisations are actively campaigning on this?
- What events are taking place to build support on challenging the government?
Any other ideas, readers?
I’ll soon start posting on each of the above. Please feel free to post any information that comes to mind in relation to the above points. As Henry Porter said this weekend:
How have we allowed this rolling putsch against our freedom? Where are the principled voices from left and right, the outrage of playwrights and novelists, the sit-ins, the marches, the swelling public anger? We have become a nation that tolerates a diabetic patient collapsed in a coma being tasered by police, the jailing of a silly young woman for writing her jihadist fantasies in verse and an illegal killing by police that was prosecuted under health and safety laws.
How indeed. Also worth reading is this article by Shami Chakrabarti of Liberty.
Why liberals and the left should champion constitutional change
Today [Thursday] is the day in Parliament where a lucky few MPs are given the chance to make law. 20 MPs’ names are pulled out of Black Rod’s stocking* who are given the chance of bringing forward a Private Members Bill that has a realistic chance of becoming law. The higher up the list, the better the chance.
In practice what this means is that the top 7 briefly become the most popular politicians in Westminster. They will be wined, dined and flattered by pressure groups, lobbying firms and individuals, intent on persuading the Honorable Member to adopt their proposed bill. I’ll be one of those people, pushing for the Citizens’ Convention Bill, and I’d like to persuade you to join me.
Reforming the constitution has always been a concern of the liberal left. The Guardian has recently been shouting about the Putney Debates. Following on from the Levellers, there were the Chartists. The Liberal Party emerged out of the process that got us the Great Reform Act. The Trade Union movement was always keenly aware of the nature of power. In the 20th century the Suffragists extended the franchise even further while issues ranging from Lords reform (or abolition), devolution and fair votes have been ongoing debates that have never quite resulted in action but have always been predominantly lead by those on the liberal left.
We need change and this is something that all the main political parties are now signed up to. What we have not yet persuaded politicians of yet however is that change cannot be simply on their terms. So it is that Gordon Brown made a point early in his premiership to unveil a wide range of constitutional reforms, along with the promise of more. His specific proposals however were very much the lowest of the hanging fruit: parliamentary votes on whether to hold elections or go to war; more scrutiny of appointments and international treaties; a petitions committee.
continue reading… »
Failure to engage
Last week I wrote this piece for Liberal Conspiracy about how government websites aren’t exactly built to facilitate the new era of positive political engagement with the public we’re told our masters want.
Specifically, I highlighted Lord Goldsmith’s citizenship review, it’s call for the views of the public, and how if you don’t have the resources to print the review’s PDF pamphlets from the website, you are asked to contact the review team.
So, I did. I asked how I obtain a hard copy of the pamphlet ‘The Future of Citizenship Ceremonies‘. On November 6.
Still no reply a week later.
Let’s get engaged, Gordon
I’ve been giving some thought to positive engagement with political processes – I like the idea of producing a kind of rough and ready primer for the man or woman in the street who wants to get their voice heard.
The Queen’s Speech seems the ideal place to start. So, head to the Number 10 website. Click on the special section all about the Queen’s Speech and select the list of bills, draft bills and statements to see what issues were covered in the speech.
Let’s take a look the Citizenship and Immigration Draft Bill. They’re hot, emotive issues right now. There’s not a lot of detail in the PDF document (what is it about this government and PDFs?) but there is a link at the bottom to Lord Goldsmith’s citizenship review.
Except the link doesn’t work. You can’t click through to the review’s webpage from the PDF document. You can either type the web address manually into your web browser or try another angle.
continue reading… »
You can read articles through the front page, via Twitter or rss feeds.
» How bad is the feline obesity crisis?
» Why don’t MPs pay back tuition fees instead of increasing ours?
» Obama is right to slam BP – and why capitalists should too
» Why does Phillip Blond see civic cohesion as a security issue?
» So what if the Labour candidates went to Oxbridge?
» Last night’s Labour hustings: will it get interesting or turn to torture?
» It’s now down to Ken to win London for Labour
» The Labour people need
» Blog Nation: what would you like to see discussed?
» The Labour leadership’s token contender.. and it’s not Diane Abbott
» In defence of these fraternal nominations
|
66 Comments 20 Comments 13 Comments 10 Comments 18 Comments 4 Comments 25 Comments 49 Comments 31 Comments 16 Comments |
|
LATEST COMMENTS » Blackberries posted on Complete tits » Shatterface posted on How bad is the feline obesity crisis? » Shatterface posted on Complete tits » McDuff posted on Why I'm defending Ed Balls over immigration » damon posted on Complete tits » Sunny Hundal posted on Complete tits » sunny hundal posted on Why don't MPs pay back tuition fees instead of increasing ours? » Lee Griffin posted on The Labour leadership's token contender.. and it's not Diane Abbott » dan posted on Defend the urban fox! » Richard W posted on Boris rise for Living Wage left of Labour » Julian Swainson posted on How many cabinet MPs went to private schools? » sally posted on Complete tits » Joanne Dunn posted on How many cabinet MPs went to private schools? » Lovely Lynnette Peck posted on How many cabinet MPs went to private schools? » Nick posted on Why don't MPs pay back tuition fees instead of increasing ours? |
