David Davis resigns as MP over civil liberties

[Badger Kitten]

he's said that he's resigned on an issue of civil liberties being sold down the river. I don't believe him. No one is obliged to.

I do believe him.

Look, he is the Tory Shadow Home Secretary, it would be utterly stupid to think we agree on everything, or many things at all. But he IS trying to raise an issue I care about. Why attack someone who is raising the issue of liberties? Why? On a single CL ticket? Why? When they don't have to? Why? Why split it? Why make it all minority again? Why?

Oh, because he is a Tory.
This is above politics.



Get smart: I'm trying to make a point that this is above politics. How could I make that point if I was supporting someone whose politics were exactly the same as my own?

 

[butchersapron]

I do believe him.

Look, he is the Tory Shadow Home Secretary, it would be utterly stupid to think we agree on everything, or many things at all. But he IS trying to raise an issue I care about. Why attack someone who is raising the issue of liberties? Why? On a single CL ticket? Why? When they don't have to? Why? Why split it? Why make it all minority again? Why?

Oh, because he is a Tory.
This is above politics.



Get smart: I'm trying to make a point that this is above politics. How could I make that point if I was supporting someone whose politics were exactly the same as my own?

Look, get smart, lissen up, hearken here: it isn't above politics. It's the continuation of politics. Davis and the tories want you to think that it is isn't. And that's why he should be attacked.

But you're falling for it like a first time voter.

 

[Darios]

Just how naive are you?

Uhm, well holy shit - DD's actions are now causing the Tories to make all sorts of backtracking noises about civil liberties issues. It's sure just electioneering. And yet if it forces the agenda to move to a pro-CL discussion I can only see this as a good thing.

 

[butchersapron]

Uhm, well holy shit - DD's actions are now causing the Tories to make all sorts of backtracking noises about civil liberties issues. It's sure just electioneering. And yet if it forces the agenda to move to a pro-CL discussion I can only see this as a good thing.

They're causing the tories to try and made some gain out of the current situation. In the same way as in the past they've tried to make gains by being harder than labopur. Yeah, the worlds turned upside down. Everything is chnaged , chnagd utterly. Or it's just the same game.

You want a pro-CL discussion, attack Davis, attack the tories, attack labour.

 

[Badger Kitten]

Look, get smart, lissen up, hearken here: it isn't above politics. It's the continuation of politics. Davis and the tories want you to think that it is isn't. And that's why he should be attacked.

But you're falling for it like a first time voter.

Or a cynical seasoned political insider who doesn't even want to try ?

I want to try. Okay? So let me try. If it gets nowhere, well, nor did anything else. A Labour Govt voted to bang people not charged with a crime up in Paddington Green for 6 weeks. I know people who were banged up there, I know a man who was in Belmarsh for 9 months who was innocent. What they told me haunts me.

I have tried to make my point and I am still trying. I honestly think we need to throw everything we have against this

So this is an unorthodox way, it's likely to get dirty and I am frankly scared of what could happen. I'm a civilian not a politician. I am scared about going and givng a speech and the tabloids coming after me.

But - bloody hell - this is such a chance to try to say, enough, please, I don't want my kids to grow up in a state where they can lock you up for 6 weeks, where all the apparatus of State is set up to do the worst, without redress.

This is too serious and too scary not to try.

 

[butchersapron]

So stop supporting a tory 28 dayer and start attacking him. Make those liberties that bit safer by your contribution to not letting those who support those attacks walk away from it.

 

[agricola]

Not to the result it wouldn't. How many votes does he get? One, the same as everyone else. And as such an important player he would be aware that hos own vote against would not have made a difference either way. So he either just voted to keep in with the party or voted how he really thought. Either way, no some who you should be tying a pro-civil liberties campaign to. He either doesn't support them or is prepared to sell them out to personal political gain.

The record that i posted up showd him being relatively inconsistent at best.

Butchers,

He was the Shadow Home Secretary - yes, he gets one vote but if he goes into the "no" lobby (bear in mind that on the amendment for 28 days, "no" was the option that the Government was three-line whipping in favour of) then it sends a huge signal to the rest of his party. A no to 28 days on that occasion was a vote for 60 or 90 days.

 

[butchersapron]

Butchers,

He was the Shadow Home Secretary - yes, he gets one vote but if he goes into the "no" lobby (bear in mind that on the amendment for 28 days, "no" was the option that the Government was three-line whipping in favour of) then it sends a huge signal to the rest of his party. A no to 28 days on that occasion was a vote for 60 or 90 days.

Indeed, and imagine what message he'd send by abstaining.

 

[Badger Kitten]

So stop supporting a tory 28 dayer and start attacking him. Make those liberties that bit safer by your contribution to not letting those who support those attacks walk away from it.

Tories have said they will look at repealing 28. Why attack? It's working.

Tick.

 

[agricola]

Tories have said they will look at repealing 28. Why attack? It's working.

Tick.

Actually BK they dont have to repeal it (28 days) - it has a grandfather clause, so if they dont renew it one year it lapses, and we are back to 14 days (iirc).

 

[agricola]

Indeed, and imagine what message he'd send by abstaining.

Butchers, you are being deliberately obtuse.

 

[butchersapron]

Tories have said they will look at repealing 28. Why attack? It's working.

Tick.

Tock, because they're playing the game. How naive do you have to be to believe them? Please, look at the history of the PTA. Do some reading. Do som research.

 

[Badger Kitten]

Wood, trees.

 

[butchersapron]

Butchers, you are being deliberately obtuse.

Nio i'm not. What was wrong with my point. Would his abstention haave sent a pretty bloody strong message on civil liverties - yes. Did he do it - no.

 

[Badger Kitten]

Actually BK they dont have to repeal it (28 days) - it has a grandfather clause, so if they dont renew it one year it lapses, and we are back to 14 days (iirc).

I know, but get the stinking statute out. Send a message. Change direction.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Badger - I have sympathy with your position but I think you're wrong. Civil liberties are a political issue. That Davis is a tory with a poor record on civil liberties is an issue.

Sweeping these issues under the table in the interests of a united front is both short sited and politically disarming. All the civil liberties that we have in this country have been won and given social content through struggle. They are not handed on down from on high by opportunists like Davis. This resignation poses no threat to Davis at all - re-election will be a cake walk and he stands to gain a lot political capital from this and strengthen his position within the tory party from it.

I'll grant you this - if he faced the strong possibility of defeat in the election by a candidate who supported 42 days then there would be a case for offering him support because a victory by an anti-libertarian would undoubtedly strengthen the authoritarianism of the state and the media. However, it is inconceivable that such a scenario will occur.

By joining the uncritical chorus of Davis supporters we help to drain activism and distract attention from what's needed to preserve our liberties. I'll say it again - Davis backed Cameron's opposition to the Human Rights Act because it prevents Britain from deporting terror suspects to face death and torture abroad. Now that is a position that is far worse than support for 42 days detention without charge. That's aiding and abetting torture and murder and totally illegal under international law. And that's not to mention his positions on restricting the civil liberties of women, homosexuals and the unemployed (he wants to send them to boot camps ffs!).

 

[butchersapron]

Wood, trees.

VOTE TORY - they'll save us. Or more, he'll save us.

 

[Badger Kitten]

Tock, because they're playing the game. How naive do you have to be to believe them? Please, look at the history of the PTA. Do some reading. Do some research.

There is no precedent for this.

 

[Badger Kitten]

VOTE TORY - they'll save us. Or more, he'll save us.

.

DON'T SPEAK OUT FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES. Because being anti TORY is more important.

 

[butchersapron]

Badger - I have sympathy with your position but I think you're wrong. Civil liberties are a political issue. That Davis is a tory with a poor record on civil liberties is an issue.

Sweeping these issues under the table in the interests of a united front is both short sited and politically disarming. All the civil liberties that we have in this country have been won and given social content through struggle. They are not handed on down from on high by opportunists like Davis. This resignation poses no threat to Davis at all - re-election will be a cake walk and he stands to gain a lot political capital from this and strengthen his position within the tory party from it.

I'll grant you this - if he faced the strong possibility of defeat in the election by a candidate who supported 42 days then there would be a case for offering him support because a victory by an anti-libertarian would undoubtedly strengthen the authoritarianism of the state and the media. However, it is inconceivable that such a scenario will occur.

By joining the uncritical chorus of Davis supporters we help to drain activism and distract attention from what's needed to preserve our liberties. I'll say it again - Davis backed Cameron's opposition to the Human Rights Act because it prevents Britain from deporting terror suspects to face death and torture abroad. Now that is a position that is far worse than support for 42 days detention without charge. That's aiding and abetting torture and murder and totally illegal under international law. And that's not to mention his positions on restricting the civil liberties of women, homosexuals and the unemployed (he wants to send them to boot camps ffs!).

Inded the HRA stuff is something i was reluctant to get into right now, i'm glad that you've brought it up now though Jeff. There's nothing left of nay civol liberties platform after that.

 

[magneze]

Because you will not get the people to join you.

As I said earlier, we are bickering now and we all pretty much agree. We all support civil liberties, as far as I can tell, we all hate the conservatives, we all want to do something about it.

Yet we are still arguing.

You are trying to pin people under YOUR banner.

And who says that everyone agrees that 28 day IS bad? Some people might honestly think that 28 days is ok, but 42 is too many. You don't get to decide for everyone else.

At the moment, one man, a public figure has made the stand against 42 days, he has stood up and said, no that is a step too far.

That is more then what we have right now. If we support that, then maybe the next time 28 days comes up, someone might stand against that.

This is a good point. We went up to 42 days bit by bit ... it's pretty damn unlikely we'll go from 42 back down to 1 in one step. But, if we can reverse the trend ... then it's a start.

 

[agricola]

Nio i'm not. What was wrong with my point. Would his abstention haave sent a pretty bloody strong message on civil liverties - yes. Did he do it - no.

No, abstaining would have sent the message that the Shadow Home Secretary didnt approve of his own sides amendment, and therefore that he was in favour of 60 or 90 days.

Please understand that, as far as 28 days was concerned, any vote other than aye to that amendment drastically increased the chance of 60 or 90 days being voted in, especially when you are one of the main proponents of that amendment.

I realise I have posted much the same thing twice, but I hope this will increase the chance of you realising the fact above.

 

[Badger Kitten]

Badger - I have sympathy with your position but I think you're wrong. Civil liberties are a political issue. That Davis is a tory with a poor record on civil liberties is an issue.

Sweeping these issues under the table in the interests of a united front is both short sited and politically disarming. All the civil liberties that we have in this country have been won and given social content through struggle. They are not handed on down from on high by opportunists like Davis. This resignation poses no threat to Davis at all - re-election will be a cake walk and he stands to gain a lot political capital from this and strengthen his position within the tory party from it.

I'll grant you this - if he faced the strong possibility of defeat in the election by a candidate who supported 42 days then there would be a case for offering him support because a victory by an anti-libertarian would undoubtedly strengthen the authoritarianism of the state and the media. However, it is inconceivable that such a scenario will occur.

By joining the uncritical chorus of Davis supporters we help to drain activism and distract attention from what's needed to preserve our liberties. I'll say it again - Davis backed Cameron's opposition to the Human Rights Act because it prevents Britain from deporting terror suspects to face death and torture abroad. Now that is a position that is far worse than support for 42 days detention without charge. That's aiding and abetting torture and murder and totally illegal under international law. And that's not to mention his positions on restricting the civil liberties of women, homosexuals and the unemployed (he wants to send them to boot camps ffs!).

Okay.

That is a fairer point than TORIES!!!!1111!!

But if nobody stands with him, labour get to say



They had a party for civil liberties....but nobody came
Derail the machine, then rebuild the engine?

I *have* to go eat now.
Just in case you think I 'm, running away

 

[butchersapron]

.

DON'T SPEAK OUT FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES. Because being anti TORY is more important.

How odd, because i thought i'd said that i though speaking out for cvil liberties included attacking those who attacked them, including your tory. That this is in defence of real substantial liberties. That my rejection of your VOTE TORY position is based on speaking out in defence of civil liberties wherever and bu whoever they're challenged.

That's just a bit shit frankly. And pretty embarrassing.

 

[butchersapron]

No, abstaining would have sent the message that the Shadow Home Secretary didnt approve of his own sides amendment, and therefore that he was in favour of 60 or 90 days.

Please understand that, as far as 28 days was concerned, any vote other than aye to that amendment drastically increased the chance of 60 or 90 days being voted in, especially when you are one of the main proponents of that amendment.

I realise I have posted much the same thing twice, but I hope this will increase the chance of you realising the fact above.

Not if he's said that he was abstaining because he rejected all the proposals as being opposed to a pro-civil liberties position. He didn't.

Please understand that i don't care. I'm trying to establish that his now claimed record of being a consistent civlil libertarian is an historical lie. He isn't. That's all.

 

[butchersapron]

Okay.

That is a fairer point than TORIES!!!!1111!!

But if nobody stands with him, labour get to say



They had a party for civil liberties....but nobody came
Derail the machine, then rebuild the engine?

I *have* to go eat now.
Just in case you think I 'm, running away

They had a party and you were too busy getting people to VOTE TORY.

 

[agricola]

Not if he's said that he was abstaining because he rejected all the proposals as being opposed to a pro-civil liberties position. He didn't.

Please understand that i don't care. I'm trying to establish that his now claimed record of being a consistent civlil libertarian is an historical lie. He isn't. That's all.

You are trying to do that, but you are failing to do so.

 

[exosculate]

Not if he's said that he was abstaining because he rejected all the proposals as being opposed to a pro-civil liberties position. He didn't.

Please understand that i don't care. I'm trying to establish that his now claimed record of being a consistent civlil libertarian is an historical lie. He isn't. That's all.

Relative to the front bench, within a small parameter, and in a way that is easily digestable by the general public .........he is relatively more of a proponent of civ libs than the Labour party front bench.

That is what is important, else we should be criticising why he isn't campaigning for 48 hour detention period. I mean how purest can you get on this?

 

[butchersapron]

You are trying to do that, but you are failing to do so.

You think. I think it's been pretty clearly shown over the breadth of this thread that there's nary a civil liberatarina bone in his body. Jeff has just brought in the HRA nuclear bomb. Your attempt to make it look like he had to vote for 28 days as a pro-civil liberties measure have failed. His pronouncements on hanging and votes equal gay riights are just a few other headline issues that have been brought up. There's more too i suspect.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

But if nobody stands with him, labour get to say



They had a party for civil liberties....but nobody came

They don't get to say that in any rational sense. They may get to put that idea forward in the media, but the problem there is not that people aren't supporting the Tory, it is that they are still managing to promote the whole "there is no alternative" / "politics is approved factions" concept, and every time you play to that it just gets more entrenched.