Terror Bill simplified
Sent to my MP, Valerie Davey, courtesy of http://www.faxyourmp.com/
Thank you for your letter of 3rd March.
I agree that in the next 50 years, a WMD-type scenario in Britain is
likely and we should be prepared for it. Indeed it is better to be
prepared for it now, rather than rushing in overzealous legislation
when it's too late. Preparation also includes extra emergency services
on standby which, as I understand it, we simply don't have.
Compared to ID cards, control orders is a fairly simple issue,
understandable through weighing up 4 issues:
1. Immediate Level of Terrorist Threat - many experts doubt Sir John
Stevens' sensationalist News of the World assertion that up to 200
Al-Qaeda terrorists are waiting to strike Britain. If that was the
case, I believe that we'd have more than 11 detainees in Belmarsh (none
of whom are apparently dangerous enough to hold under house arrest
anyway). We'd also have more convictions than the accomplice of the
incompetent 'shoe bomber'. We'd have more evidence of close-calls.
And since it will be near-impossible to prove Sir John wrong, his
reputation isn't on the line.
Mr Blair already has a track record of pressuring third parties into
helping him to deliberately exaggerate dubious evidence to justify his
preconceived notions.
2. Due Process - the Bill breaks 900 years of Habeas Corpus and the
notion of innocence until proven guilty. Since police can detain
anyone for 36 hours anyway, it's inconceivable that a private court
hearing could not be arranged within that time. If evidence against
the suspect must be withheld from the suspect, such measures must be
deemed proportional by an objective (and hence accountable) judge.
Since evidence may well include that obtained under torture, I believe
that all evidence should be brought before a judge before any control
order is imposed.
3. Accountability - without any personal responsibility (ie potential
loss to the judge/Home Secretary), there is nothing to stop abuse of
these laws. In light of claims of needs for secrecy, it is easy to
imagine control orders being imposed irresponsibly.
4. Abusability - the capacity for the laws to be used in ways not
justified by the Threat. The government proposals are still extremely
abusable. In addition to the dangers I mentioned in my last letter,
section 1(2) of the bill states:
"A control order may impose ANY OBLIGATION on the individual against
whom it is made that the Secretary of State considers necessary..."
Just imagine what Mugabe would do with such power.
Asked whether Home Secretary Charles Clarke would use the new
anti-terror laws against G8 protesters, our Prime Minister said: "I
couldn't rule it out". As somebody who'd MUCH rather be getting on
with my life than pouring over the fine print of the latest draconian
Bill, I am seriously concerned by this comment.
Nor does needing a judge's signature do much to stop potential abusers.
But at least it's a move in the right direction.
I congratulate you for voting for Amendment 4. I also hope that you
voted for every single amendment returned by the House of Lords. The
balance of probability amendment is especially important. It is better
than 'reasonable suspicion' as it is unlikely that any judge could
argue that the Home Secretary is unreasonably suspicious.
In regards to the Emergency Powers already granted to ministers by the
Civil Contingencies Act 2004: section 2, I want to make sure you
understand that even a government Party Whip could orally declare an
Emergency and "make provision of any kind that could be made by Act of
Parliament or by the exercise of the Royal Prerogative."
Did you know that Britain is now a few spoken words away from a legal
dictatorship?