more signs of a forthcoming police state?

[Azrael]

IMO calling hangers and floggers a lynch-mob is a simple statement of fact.

Well no, not unless they want to hang and flog people with, erm, a lynch mob.

Peter Hitchens has to be the embodiment of hangers and floggers, but he's also about the staunchest civil libertarian in the public sphere.

 

[Nemo]

You have to consider everyone's opinions as being equally valid in my view. It is a sign that you really respect other people.

What makes you think that I think other people's opinions aren't valid? If I truly thought that do you think I'd have bothered to hang around here for five years debating with people on the internet? Respecting other people's opinions doesn't mean being too scared of offending people to have opinions of your own. People like that are the only ones I truly don't respect.

 

[Nemo]

Well no, not unless they want to hang and flog people with, erm, a lynch mob.

*Shrug* Doesn't really matter what the terminology is imo.

Peter Hitchens has to be the embodiment of hangers and floggers, but he's also about the staunchest civil libertarian in the public sphere.

He's still a wanker. I can't stand that man.

 

[TAE]

The link in the original post doesn't even say what is being reported. Here's another one:

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article484130.ece

Well that sounds very different indeed.

The initial news reports clearly stated that the government wanted the power to overrule individual decisions. As you said, they already have the power (via parliamental majority) to changing legislation so I'm not clear what you think they ARE proposing.

It sounded as if you had "actually read the detail from the sources" so I was wondering if you had a link to the leaked letter.

 

[Azrael]

*Shrug* Doesn't really matter what the terminology is imo.

Well you said they're a lynch-mob, that's got very specific connotations that hannger and flogger simply doesn't.

He's still a wanker. I can't stand that man.

Whatever his tendancy for auto-erotic activities, Hitchens is bloody good at arguing the civil liberties cause. Anyone who's still in a fit over abolishing the jury unanimity rule is OK in my book.

 

[Nemo]

Well you said they're a lynch-mob, that's got very specific connotations that hannger and flogger simply doesn't.

Not in my view, in my view both terms denote a very similar mentality.

Whatever his tendancy for auto-erotic activities, Hitchens is bloody good at arguing the civil liberties cause. Anyone who's still in a fit over abolishing the jury unanimity rule is OK in my book.

I must admit I've never been able to stay calm enough to hear what he's actually saying as his manner alone infuriates me almost beyond reason.

 

[free spirit]

Greezbozz - which of these human rights do you disagree with and why?

ARTICLE 2 RIGHT TO LIFE

You have the absolute right to have your life protected by law. There are only certain very limited circumstances where it is acceptable for the State to take away someone' s life, eg if a police officer acts justifiably in self defence.

ARTICLE 3 PROHIBITION OF TORTURE

You have the absolute right not to be tortured or subjected to treatment or punishment which is inhuman or degrading.

ARTICLE 4 PROHIBITION OF SLAVERY AND FORCED LABOUR

You have the absolute right not to be treated as a slave or forced to perform certain kinds of labour.

ARTICLE 5 RIGHT TO LIBERTY AND SECURITY

You have the right not to be deprived of your liberty -'arrested or detained' -except in limited cases specified in the Article (eg where you are suspected or convicted of committing a crime) and where this is justified by a clear legal procedure.

ARTICLE 6 RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL

You have the right to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable period of time. This applies to both criminal charges against you, or in sorting out cases concerning your civil rights and obligations. Hearings must be by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. It is possible to exclude the public from the hearing (though not the judgement) if that is necessary to protect things like national security or public order. If it is a criminal charge you are presumed innocent
until proved guilty according to law and have certain guaranteed rights to defend yourself.

ARTICLE 7 NO PUNISHMENT WITHOUT LAW

You normally have the right not to be found guilty of an offence arising out of actions which at the time you committed them were not criminal. You are also protected against later increases in the possible sentence for an offence.

 

[free spirit]

ah fuck it lets put them all in... any of these you disagree with?

ARTICLE 8 RIGHT TO RESPECT FOR PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE

You have the right to respect for your private and family life, your home and your correspondence. This right can only be restricted in specified circumstances.

ARTICLE 9 FREEDOM OF THOUGHT, CONSCIENCE AND RELIGION

You are free to hold a broad range of views, beliefs and thoughts, as well as religious faith. Limitations are permitted only in specified circumstances.

ARTICLE 10 FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION 7

You have the right to hold opinions and express your views on your own or in a group. This applies even if they are unpopular or disturbing. This right can only be restricted in specified circumstances.

ARTICLE 11 FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY AND ASSOCIATION

You have the right to assemble with other people in a peaceful way. You also have the right to associate with other people, which can include the right to form a trade union. These rights may be restricted only in specified circumstances.

ARTICLE 12 RIGHT TO MARRY

Men and women have the right to marry and start a family. The national law will still govern how and at what age this can take place.

(Article 13 is not included in the Human Rights Act)

ARTICLE 14 PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION

In the application of the Convention rights, you have the right not to be treated differently because of your race, religion, sex, political views or any other status, unless this can be justified objectively. Everyone must have equal access to Convention rights, whatever their status.

ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL 1 PROTECTION OF PROPERTY

(a 'protocol' is a later addition to the Convention)
You have the right to the peaceful enjoyment of your possessions. Public authorities cannot usually interfere with things you own or the way you use them except in specified limited circumstances.

ARTICLE 2 OF PROTOCOL 1 RIGHT TO EDUCATION

You have the right not to be denied access to the educational system.

ARTICLE 3 OF PROTOCOL 1 RIGHT TO FREE ELECTIONS

Elections for members of the legislative body (eg Parliament) must be free and fair and take place by secret ballot. Some qualifications may be imposed on those that are eligible to vote (eg a minimum age).

ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL 6 / ARTICLE 2 OF PROTOCOL 6
ABOLITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY

These provisions abolish the death penalty. There can be limited exceptions in times of war but only in accordance with clearly specified laws.

 

[free spirit]

IMO - Blair has problems with articles 3, 5, 6 and 7, as half his recent anti-terrorism / immigration laws seem to be pushing at the limits of what's legal under these articles.

I really don't understand how his detention centre policy for assylum seekers isn't breaching article 5 like

 

[free spirit]

You have to consider everyone's opinions as being equally valid in my view. It is a sign that you really respect other people.

depends on whether the person has ever researched the issue or just taken what they read in the Sun to be gospel... ie. had you actually read the articles of the human rights act given above or not prior to starting this thread? and if you hadn't (as most of this country probably hasn't) do you think I should give your view equal weight to mine, or say the group of people who first drew up these articles 50 odd years ago after much consideration?

The human rights act is there to protect the human rights of everyone whether the government likes it or not... that is the point, it is there to protect the people (ie. all of us) from the government. Or do you think it's right for the government to be able to lock people up without trial for years on end on the say so of the home secretary.

Even if you would trust this government with these powers (which I don't), how can you be sure that every government in the future would be equally trustworthy.

The human rights act (and more specifically the fact that it is backed up by the European Human Rights act that we would have to leave the EU to opt out of) is our best defence against the possibility of ever having to live in a police state. Do you really want to throw this protection away because the sun says 9 afghans have managed to be allowed to stay in this country?

 

[Azrael]

Not in my view, in my view both terms denote a very similar mentality.

How? One wants criminals punished severely, the other gives no regard to seperating the innocent from the guilty. Those are two very different mindsets.

Of course then can and often do combine, but it isn't a foregone conclusion.

I must admit I've never been able to stay calm enough to hear what he's actually saying as his manner alone infuriates me almost beyond reason.

Yeees, he does rather get people's heckles up. Think he comes across a lot better in person and in his own books than in those Daily Mail columns tailored to readers' prejudices. His actual views are far broader and nuanced than the gibbering lag-roasting homophobe the Mail likes to see.

He's out of his time really, the extreme-libertarian pre-conviction and extreme-authoritarian post-conviction view doesn't fit into current political cerdoes.

 

[Azrael]

The human rights act (and more specifically the fact that it is backed up by the European Human Rights act that we would have to leave the EU to opt out of) is our best defence against the possibility of ever having to live in a police state. Do you really want to throw this protection away because the sun says 9 afghans have managed to be allowed to stay in this country?

Nah, our best defence is getting agressively pro-civil liberties views back onto the political agenda and doing away with that rediculous recieved wisdom that "A freedom lost cannot be restored." (Yes it bloody well can you defeatist sods.) The Human Rights act is incredibly weak and can easily be ignored by those in power.

 

[TAE]

depends on whether ...

[...]

... to stay in this country?

I couldn't agree more. Well said.

 

[TAE]

The Human Rights act is incredibly weak and can easily be ignored by those in power.

I disagree. It's already stopped this government from going down certain paths. I really wonder how this government would be behaving if the European Human Rights were not a condition of EU membership. But everything can be improved - so which bits, exactly, should be stronger in your opinion?

 

[magneze]

So, to summarise, our glorious leader objects to:

ARTICLE 3 PROHIBITION OF TORTURE
ARTICLE 5 RIGHT TO LIBERTY AND SECURITY
ARTICLE 7 NO PUNISHMENT WITHOUT LAW

How can this be justified? What amazes me is that more newspapers don't have that sort of thing as a headline - I bet he'd back down pretty fucking quickly once the general public realised just what he was against!

 

[Jonti]

You have to consider everyone's opinions as being equally valid in my view. It is a sign that you really respect other people.

No, everyone's opinion is not equally valid. If all opinions were equally valid, one would have no need for reason, facts and evidence.

There's a real world out there. People can be wrong in their opinions about the way things are in the world. It is amazingly spineless and wishy-washy to ignore that fact. And it obscenely disrespectful to those people who have fought for the right to understand our world.

Was Galileo's opinion no more valid than that of the Christians who threatened him with being burned alive?

 

[fela fan]

So, to summarise, our glorious leader objects to:

ARTICLE 3 PROHIBITION OF TORTURE
ARTICLE 5 RIGHT TO LIBERTY AND SECURITY
ARTICLE 7 NO PUNISHMENT WITHOUT LAW

How can this be justified? What amazes me is that more newspapers don't have that sort of thing as a headline - I bet he'd back down pretty fucking quickly once the general public realised just what he was against!

Indeed. The question is, why do the press not pick up on these things?

Coz if it's not in the press, it just isn't.

Back on topic, can any posters resident in the UK comment on my question as to how far britain is developing into a police state, or not?

I'll be there next month to help judge for myself. But i often think that things can creep up on you without noticing what's going on until it's fully happened.

And by then it'll be too late.

 

[Greebozz]

No, everyone's opinion is not equally valid. If all opinions were equally valid, one would have no need for reason, facts and evidence.

There's a real world out there. People can be wrong in their opinions about the way things are in the world. It is amazingly spineless and wishy-washy to ignore that fact. And it obscenely disrespectful to those people who have fought for the right to understand our world.

Was Galileo's opinion no more valid than that of the Christians who threatened him with being burned alive?

You are falling into a trap here, Your argument is in good in a way particularly in relationship to science.

But society is not so black and white,

What if instead of Galileo's theory someone came along and said that one in ten children should be sacrificed to appease the Gods.

And that person was attributed the same "in knowledge" you have. That sort of thinking has never not led to disaster and tyranny.

 

[magneze]

So, which article of the Act do you most oppose Greebozz?

 

[Blagsta]

You are falling into a trap here, Your argument is in good in a way particularly in relationship to science.

But society is not so black and white,

What if instead of Galileo's theory someone came along and said that one in ten children should be sacrificed to appease the Gods.

And that person was attributed the same "in knowledge" you have. That sort of thinking has never not led to disaster and tyranny.

Does this make sense to anyone?

 

[TAE]

Back on topic, can any posters resident in the UK comment on my question as to how far britain is developing into a police state, or not?

They are not using the new powers widely enough for anyone of consequence to notice. In a sense, that's the problem. There are all these new powers being built up and too few people are concerned because it is not affecting most of them (yet).

For instance, where I live, the individual police officers have the authority to disperse any crowd of more than three people - it's meant to tackle yob behaviour, but could equally be used for any other purpose.

It feels a bit like the movie Independence Day - getting their pieces into position before "time's up" and it's "checkmate".

 

[Jonti]

What if instead of Galileo's theory someone came along and said that one in ten children should be sacrificed to appease the Gods.

And that person was attributed the same "in knowledge" you have.

Quite. That shows it is wrong to think that everyone's opinion is equally valid.

 

[Azrael]

I disagree. It's already stopped this government from going down certain paths.

How? When the judges ruled against indefinite detention for foreign suspects Labour just brought in control orders. The UK DNA databank is packed with innocent people's samples. ID cards are full steam ahead. The biggest thing the Human Rights Act achieved is enshrining prisoners' right to porn.

I really wonder how this government would be behaving if the European Human Rights were not a condition of EU membership. But everything can be improved - so which bits, exactly, should be stronger in your opinion?

The whole thing.

As it was written to encompas the legal systems of an entire continent it's very vague, and not tailored to our legal traditions. For example there's no mention of trial by jury, double jepoardy, self-incrimination etc. There's no equivlient of the Fourth Ammendment search and seizure protections, or bar on Cruel and Unusual punishment.

And the freedom of expression clause is a joke:-

The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to ... restrictions ... necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

The US Constitution says speech is free, full stop. The Human Rights Act says it's free so long as it doesn't cross MI5 and Mary Whitehouse.

I'd rip the whole thing up and write one of our own. The Candaian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was inspired by the Euro Convetion, but they tailored it to their legal system. The result might be less inspiring than a grocery list but it offers a helluva lot more protection than our Human Rights Act.

Oh yeah, and drop this "declaration of incompatibility" gubbins. Any constitution that doesn't allow judges to strike down laws is toothless.

 

[TAE]

How? When the judges ruled against indefinite detention for foreign suspects Labour just brought in control orders.

Not quite. The government were treating foreign suspects differently from UK suspects. That is what the judges specifically objected to.

The UK DNA databank is packed with innocent people's samples. ID cards are full steam ahead.

While I am not in favour of these, I don't see them as a human rights issue.

The biggest thing the Human Rights Act achieved is enshrining prisoners' right to porn.

Nonesense.

The whole thing.

I doubt that. Please be specific.

As it was written to encompas the legal systems of an entire continent it's very vague, and not tailored to our legal traditions.

Ok, what you are saying is that in addition to the EHRA we should have further guarantees enshrined in our own laws?

I would agree with that.

The US Constitution says speech is free, full stop.

Unless someone with lots of money sues you.


One thing I keep banging on about is that in Germany (where I grew up) you'd need a two-thirds majority to change certain human rights laws.
If we had that over here, it would be much more difficult for Blair & co to make up wacky laws and suspend basic rights.

 

[Nemo]

One thing I keep banging on about is that in Germany (where I grew up) you'd need a two-thirds majority to change certain human rights laws.
If we had that over here, it would be much more difficult for Blair & co to make up wacky laws and suspend basic rights.

Not necessarily. Don't forget that in the 1997-2001 Parliament, Blair had 412 MPs, which would mean he'd only need another 23 from other parties to do that if all his MPs voted the line.

 

[TAE]

Ok, but those are some big IFs there.

IF the government already has 412 MPs and IF all the back benchers agree and IF they can get an extra 23 votes from other parties.
That's not easy. I think the ban on smoking was just about 2/3 majority.

As it is, they can push through just about anything they want - apart from the Lords complaining.

 

[treelover]

A spy in your street!
i'm not one for saying new labour is a new form of fascism, but authoritarian? certainly, now the great hazel blears is authorising that all manner of public officials and busybodies from Neighbourhood wardens, community support officers, park keepers, to housing officers will be given regular access to local police intelligence so as to deal with anti-social behaviour, etc. In effect to act as govt spies on fellow citizens. Surely, this along with 48 streets being privatised in liverpool city centre complete with unaccountable private police force(see privatised public space thread on p/p), work advisers in g.p surgeries, etc, is very dangerous and the start of a very dangerous road. We know from history that once people are given power and authority to spy on others it can have very bad consequences.


Government enlists public service 'spies'

Council staff may be given police intelligence to monitor local criminals

Patrick Wintour and Hugh Muir
Friday May 19, 2006
The Guardian

Neighbourhood wardens, community support officers, park keepers, housing officers and other frontline council staff should be given regular access to local police intelligence in an attempt to clamp down on antisocial behaviour and other low-level crime, under plans being examined by Downing Street.

The plan, seen as part of a strategy to develop more effective neighbourhood policing teams throughout England by 2008, has been supported by Hazel Blears in her role as home office minister responsible for crime before switching to the post of Labour party chairman.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homea...778675,00.html

 

[TAE]

Worked a treat in East Germany!

 

[Azrael]

Not quite. The government were treating foreign suspects differently from UK suspects. That is what the judges specifically objected to.

So we all end up equally unfree. That ain't what I call an improvement!

While I am not in favour of these, I don't see them as a human rights issue.

What on earth are they then? They're unquestionably a civil liberties issue, if that's what you're getting at.

Nonesense.

Okay, yes, it is, but the point still stands that the nebulous concept of human rights has produced some batty decisions. Civil liberties recognise that people loose certain rights upon conviction.

I doubt that. Please be specific.

I was: there's no incorporation of common law protections into the Articles.

Ok, what you are saying is that in addition to the EHRA we should have further guarantees enshrined in our own laws?

If we did get our own charter of rights the HRA would be redundent as the UK charter would do its job in a more comprehensive way. Linking human rights with Europe is making them thunderingly unpopular, and letting domestic civil liberty groups atrophy. Seen some of the defeatest crap Liberty come out with these days?

One thing I keep banging on about is that in Germany (where I grew up) you'd need a two-thirds majority to change certain human rights laws.
If we had that over here, it would be much more difficult for Blair & co to make up wacky laws and suspend basic rights.

Sure, two-thirds majority is something I'd support. (If not an even higher majority.)

 

[Azrael]

Not necessarily. Don't forget that in the 1997-2001 Parliament, Blair had 412 MPs, which would mean he'd only need another 23 from other parties to do that if all his MPs voted the line.

I'd also restore the House of Lords to its full pre-1911 powers, so he'd have to do it in two houses. Plus when you have a genuinely treasured constitution it becomes political suicide to change it. (The original 10 Ammendments in the US Bill of Rights have remained unaltered since 1790.)