David Davis resigns as MP over civil liberties

[littlebabyjesus]

Depends what specific liberty we're talking about! Even many on this forum would like to see the BNP given no platform. Go a little further, and should people have the right to have racist views? Then we get to what I meant by the public don't like civil liberties: should religious extremists be allowed to encourage people to kill people of other religions?

There are two kinds of freedom - the freedom to act and the freedom not to be acted on. A society always has to reach a balance between the two as they are often mutually exclusive. Absolute liberty is impossible.

 

[CyberRose]

No platform policies are adopted by individual organisations and institutions which have no general obligation to host anyone they dislike. It's not a civil liberties issue.

"No platform policies" - I didn't realise I'd written a technical term!

All I mean is, should the BNP be allowed to stir up racial hatred? Should religious extremists be allowed to stir up religious hatred? Both of which can lead to violence...

 

[CyberRose]

There are two kinds of freedom - the freedom to act and the freedom not to be acted on. A society always has to reach a balance between the two as they are often mutually exclusive. Absolute liberty is impossible.

I completely agree

 

[untethered]

There needs to be a balance between civil liberties and security, neither extreme is desirable

There's nothing "extreme" about having a full set of civil liberties. It doesn't mean an absence of laws. It just means an absence of oppressive laws prohibiting innocuous behaviour and measures that infringe fundamental rights, such as not to be detained by the state in the absence of a charge or conviction.

"A balance must be struck" is a red herring argument where it can't reasonably be assumed that restricting liberties on one side will actually improve security on the other. Qv., ID cards/national ID register, the death penalty, etc.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Mackenzie told the BBC: "I have been associated with The Sun for 30 years. The Sun is very, very hostile to David Davis because of his 28 day stance and The Sun has always been very up for 42 days and perhaps even 420 days."

Fucking hell. The Sun certainly did back the Blair's 90 day detention without charge proposals that were chucked out by the commons. People may remember they did so by carrying a picture of the bloodied face of John Tulloch, one of the victims of the July 7th bombings, on their front page accompanied by the headline 'Tell Tony He's Right'. It later transpired that Tulloch, himself a media analyst, was furious at the Sun for using his image to promote Blair's legislation which he personally opposed without seeking his approval.

Oh yes - the Sun has such high concern for the victims of terrorism. The voice of the people my arse.

 

[Fruitloop]

How can it? This is a serious question, I wanted to read what the law actually says but haven't had the time. It's supposedly for use in "exceptional circumstances", is that enshrined in the wording?

How can detention without even a charge possibly be restricted to only a certain class of person? Given that the whole point of arrest->charge->trial is precisely to determine whether a person is or isn't guilty of a particular act, holding someone without those elementary safeguards cannot possibly meet the appropriate standards for depriving someone of their liberty. To do this in the very short term might be operationally unavoidable, but to do so for an extended period of time essentially amounts to punishment without proof of guilt.

Depends what specific liberty we're talking about! Even many on this forum would like to see the BNP given no platform. Go a little further, and should people have the right to have racist views? Then we get to what I meant by the public don't like civil liberties: should religious extremists be allowed to encourage people to kill people of other religions?

No platform is a bad idea for the exact reason that if you believe in freedom of speech at all then you have to maintain that belief in the face of people saying stuff that you don't like. Freedom to say whatever nobody objects to is no freedom at all.

As for encouraging other people, well there's a grey area there, in that inciting someone specific to break a specific law is already illegal, whereas merely recommending a general course of action that might not be legal is probably OK.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

just has a look at the wiki entry for Mackenzie. He has such high regard for his readership doesn't he:

"You just don't understand the readers, do you, eh? He's the bloke you see in the pub, a right old fascist, wants to send the wogs back, buy his poxy council house, he's afraid of the unions, afraid of the Russians, hates the queers and the weirdos and drug dealers. He doesn't want to hear about that stuff (serious news)."

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I completely agree

Having said that, I've yet to be convinced that the state should be allowed to lock people up for longer than 24 hours without charge. People are being scared into accepting this, just as Blair attempted to scare us into agreeing with the Iraq war.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

just has a look at the wiki entry for Mackenzie. He has such high regard for his readership doesn't he:

"You just don't understand the readers, do you, eh? He's the bloke you see in the pub, a right old fascist, wants to send the wogs back, buy his poxy council house, he's afraid of the unions, afraid of the Russians, hates the queers and the weirdos and drug dealers. He doesn't want to hear about that stuff (serious news)."

Not a Reithian then.

 

[CyberRose]

There's nothing "extreme" about having a full set of civil liberties. It doesn't mean an absence of laws. It just means an absence of oppressive laws prohibiting innocuous behaviour and measures that infringe fundamental rights, such as not to be detained by the state in the absence of a charge or conviction.

But if you give someone the right to encourage murdering someone, then how is that protecting the liberties of the people being targeted? The state has to decide whether they should protect citizens by making it illegal to encourage someone's death, or give people the extreme right to freedom of speech. Same with libel laws - should people be allowed to write knowing lies about someone? The state have decided no, it's not ok. But you're suggesting that it is ok to write lies about someone

 

[CyberRose]

Having said that, I've yet to be convinced that the state should be allowed to lock people up for longer than 24 hours without charge. People are being scared into accepting this, just as Blair attempted to scare us into agreeing with the Iraq war.

Like with most issues, there is a severe lack of information where interested parties talk only in general terms and present extreme examples of why their arguments are stronger...

 

[CyberRose]

How can detention without even a charge possibly be restricted to only a certain class of person?

Erm the fact I asked the question in the first place suggests I don't know the answer...

No platform is a bad idea for the exact reason that if you believe in freedom of speech at all then you have to maintain that belief in the face of people saying stuff that you don't like. Freedom to say whatever nobody objects to is no freedom at all.

But you contradict yourself below...

As for encouraging other people, well there's a grey area there, in that inciting someone specific to break a specific law is already illegal, whereas merely recommending a general course of action that might not be legal is probably OK.

So what are you saying? People should, or should not be allowed to encourage people to commit violence?

 

[Fruitloop]

But if you give someone the right to encourage murdering someone, then how is that protecting the liberties of the people being targeted? The state has to decide whether they should protect citizens by making it illegal to encourage someone's death, or give people the extreme right to freedom of speech. Same with libel laws - should people be allowed to write knowing lies about someone? The state have decided no, it's not ok. But you're suggesting that it is ok to write lies about someone

The state doesn't stop you publishing lies about someone - newpapers do it all the time. All it does is provide a means of redress for actors whose interests have been damaged by other people's libels or slander, provided you can afford the legal bill.

Inciting someone in particular to go and kill some other person has been against the law for a long time, as it is not 'just saying something' but encouraging a particular crime to be committed.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Like with most issues, there is a severe lack of information where interested parties talk only in general terms and present extreme examples of why their arguments are stronger...

And without information, my default position is liberty. Unfortunately not true of everyone, but sometimes you have to be brave enough to choose freedom.

 

[Fruitloop]

Erm the fact I asked the question in the first place suggests I don't know the answer...

There's no answer because it's not possible. The benchmark of trial before one's peers has stood for such a long time because it is an imperfect but relatively impartial means of deciding who is most likely guilty of what. It is impossible to name a state that has replaced this with any form of internment, summary justice or imprisonment on the basis of suspicion or say-so that hasn't produced serious miscarrariages of justice; most have been much worse in fact.

So what are you saying? People should, or should not be allowed to encourage people to commit violence?

They probably shouldn't be able to incite people to commit specific crimes. I don't see what it has to do with the subject though.

 

[biff curtains]

I understand all that, but the perception of the matter is otherwise and in some ways that's what matters. If we want a brake to be put on this out-of-control authoritarianism, we'd better hope this goes the right way.

In what way will Davis getting re-elected in his own safe constituency put a break on anything?

 

[poster342002]

In what way will Davis getting re-elected in his own safe constituency put a break on anything?

As I say, it's all about perception. If he loses, it will be percievd that the govt has won the argument on this and other issues like ID cards for good.

In lots of ways this now goes beyond David Davies' parliamentary seat. A guantlet has been thrown down. David Davies has asked if we, the nation, want to keep on going the way we are. I for one do not.

 

[Fruitloop]

In a Liberty-commissioned You-Gov poll in March 2008, 54 percent believed that the Government’s motivation for extending pre-charge detention periods to 42 days was because it wants to look "tough on terror."

I reckon the public aren't as dumb as many seem to imagine.

 

[CyberRose]

The state doesn't stop you publishing lies about someone - newpapers do it all the time. All it does is provide a means of redress for actors whose interests have been damaged by other people's libels or slander, provided you can afford the legal bill.

Inciting someone in particular to go and kill some other person has been against the law for a long time, as it is not 'just saying something' but encouraging a particular crime to be committed.

Well you're kinda agreeing with what I'm trying to say that complete civil liberties are undesirable/not possible. You seem to be ok with the laws against incitement, but many people would argue that is an erosion of the freedom of speech

 

[trevhagl]

I see on the news that that establishment wanker Kelvin McKenzie is standing against him, you shoulda seen the smug cunt trying to make out David Davies was barmy and paranoid cos he objected to ID cards, false imprisonment and CCTV....
Who woulda thought i'd wish a TORY luck!

 

[CyberRose]

And without information, my default position is liberty. Unfortunately not true of everyone, but sometimes you have to be brave enough to choose freedom.

Well the default position if you don't have the information would be to get the information!

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I reckon the public aren't as dumb as many seem to imagine.

How many million buy the Sun, Star, Mail or Express every day? That's a pretty dumb thing to do.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Well the default position if you don't have the information would be to get the information!

From MI5, you mean? Do you have a phone number?

 

[CyberRose]

There's no answer because it's not possible.

Well I was hoping someone or some group had analysed the actual law before telling us it's not needed! Anti terror laws have been used against non terror suspects, so obviously the wording in those can be applied elsewhere. I wanted to know if this law was similar, or does it actually say "this can only be applied to those suspected of terrorism"

They probably shouldn't be able to incite people to commit specific crimes. I don't see what it has to do with the subject though.

Well as people have said, their "default" position is to oppose any reduction in civil liberties if they don't have sufficient information about something. I was just trying to say that's not necessarily the best way of approaching these matters as not all civil liberties are desirable, like the right to incite violence (which is actually a civil liberty as people claim it is "free speech")

 

[CyberRose]

From MI5, you mean? Do you have a phone number?

Mi5 didn't particularly want to extend the detention limit

No I meant has anyone actually read the law? It's not secret, it will be on Parliament's website. Have civil liberty groups legal experts decided this law can be applied, like other anti-terror laws, to non-terror suspects?

 

[poster342002]

Have civil liberty groups legal experts decided this law can be applied, like other anti-terror laws, to non-terror suspects?

I'm sure local councils are mouth-wateringly trying to work out how they can use it against people who leave their bins out on the wrong day.

 

[Fruitloop]

Well you're kinda agreeing with what I'm trying to say that complete civil liberties are undesirable/not possible. You seem to be ok with the laws against incitement, but many people would argue that is an erosion of the freedom of speech

I guess I just don't recognise 'complete civil liberties' as a reasonable idea. Civil liberties first and foremost are a protection of the individual citizen against the State - they outline the boundaries of the State's powers over its constituent members. As such they both can't and don't need to be 'complete'.

In terms of legal philosophy I guess the issue with incitement to commit a crime is to do with the degree of responsibility for the actual crime itself, whether actual or intended, not with the speech act per se. I mean, you can't walk into a bank and say 'I will detonate the bomb strapped to me unless you give me all your money' either, but again the problem isn't with what is being said but rather what is being done via that speech act, namely robbing a bank.

 

[laptop]

No I meant has anyone actually read the law?

It's a Bill, so far.

I'm halfway through reading it for the third time.

It's not secret, it will be on Parliament's website. Have civil liberty groups legal experts decided this law can be applied, like other anti-terror laws, to non-terror suspects?

The provision for seizure of documents (including computers, cameras and bulletin boards) that I mentioned above would mean that police simply have to say they had terror offences in mind.

So, since they probably have them in mind all the time, they can take what they want, when they want, and there's no comeback (not at least until or unless Gillan & Quinton win in Strasbourg over the equivalent detention for questioning provision of the 2000 Act).

 

[marty21]

this is great for the labour party - DD all over the news - a joke byelection approaching - where DD will stand against the BNP, and some other joke candidates and win - cameron was useless against DD, couldn't persuade him not to go ahead - DD getting his revenge at losing the leadership?

 

[kidtripod]

this is great for the labour party - DD all over the news - a joke byelection approaching - where DD will stand against the BNP, and some other joke candidates and win - cameron was useless against DD, couldn't persuade him not to go ahead - DD getting his revenge at losing the leadership?

The BNP aren't standing against him, because they agree with him.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7450627.stm

Yeah, that's the BNP taking a more liberal line than the parliamentary Labour party. Utterly ridiculous.

It looks like he'll end up against Kelvin Mackenzie, which has the makings of a real mess for both major parties, since I'm sure Davis will thoroughly tear Mackenzie and the whole authoritarian thing apart, but the weight behind the Sun readership will no longer automatically back the Tories.