OK is reading
Email AlertsFill in the form below to sign up to our automatic daily alerts, or weekly editorial summary (you will be taken to another page to confirm which options you want).
Navigation |
Most discussed articles...
Just Posted
|
blogs Campaigning for liberty in Haltemprice and Howden 
Beth Forrester (Unlock Democracy): On Saturday 5th July 2008, a team of four from Unlock Democracy, travelled to Cottingham in East Yorkshire. We were to have a stall at Cottingham Day, an annual fun day in this historic Yorkshire village, to educate people about civil liberties, encourage people to value their rights and discuss the issue of extending pre-charge detention to 42 days (although our activities were of course prompted by the decision by David Davis to resign and initiate this by-election, Unlock Democracy does not support any candidate). The day did not go entirely to plan but then the best experiences rarely do. All our activities in this campaign, including our wraparound adverts for both the East Riding Advertiser and the West Hull Advertiser, were funded by individuals who had donated money specifically. We were also helped by useful advice provided by a number of helpful local contacts including Alan Williams who had told us about the fayre. With Alan’s help, four Liberal Democrat members, a local councillor and the local MEP Diana Wallis all came down to support us. This was great turnout and we were grateful for the support. On arriving in Cottingham we found that this support was unfortunately not universal and were told, despite repeated phone and email contact the previous week to the contrary, that we did not have a stall booked. Eventually, we were placed next to the police safety bus, which provided a good balance in the discussion about civil liberties versus the need to be protected from crime. Our other challenge was the weather: the continual heavy rain and strong winds threatened to blow away not only our stall, but also the whole fayre at times. We were well prepared for this, with waterproofs, plastic sheeting and umbrellas, allowing us to keep campaigning and even provide some shelter to rain and wind beaten fayre-goers. To further improve our activity we distributed flyers and sweets amongst the public and engage them in discussion whilst visiting other areas of the fayre. This was an effective strategy, with people explaining why they were or were not voting and how they felt about civil liberties. Public opinion not behind 42 days - ICM pollStuart Weir (Cambridge, Democratic Audit): Gordon Brown is on shakier ground than he thinks on 42 days pre-charge detention for people suspected of terrorist offences. On the eve of the Haltemprice and Howden by-election, a new ICM poll conducted for the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust shows most people (60%) think terrorist suspects should be held without charge for no more than the current limit - 4 weeks, or 28 days. The poll questions on which he relies for his populist gesture politics with our civil liberties ask people whether terrorist suspects should be held for up to 42 days, questions that by their very nature do not fully reflect the possible innocence of those held nor the length of time that they may be held in custody. But if you ask the public, as the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust asked ICM to do, how long people who may be innocent or guilty should be held in custody, and in terms of weeks rather than days, you get a quite different response. The ICM poll shows that whilst 36% of those asked think people who may be guilty of a terrorist offence should be held in detention for up to six week, or 42 days, before they are charged or released, 32% say it should be up to four weeks, 13% up to two weeks, 10% up to one week and 6% up to four days. Significantly, when told that six weeks in custody is equivalent to the prison sentence which someone might serve if found guilty of an offence such as burglary or assault quite a few people change their minds. Of those who said terrorist suspects should be held for up to six weeks before being charged or released, more than a third (35%) changed their minds when told this and agreed it is not right to hold someone who may be innocent for so long. These findings make it all the more important that all those who wish to protect our civil liberties should work hard to ensure that the debate on 42 days is as fully informed as possible. This is not a debate that ends in Haltemprice and Howden. It is not confined to the two Houses of Parliament nor does it end with the 42 days proposal. Other major erosions of our liberty are on the way – see Tom Griffin’s recent post on inquests, for example. The database state still looms large. But David Davis and we should also take heart. I have always assumed that Davis’s initiative is designed to hold the fort in a shadow cabinet where George Osborne, Michael Gove and others are more than ready to ditch their party’s stand on 42 days. These findings show that they too may have misjudged public opinion. Davis will already be all the stronger a guardian of civil liberties from the back benches; and with a better-informed public, could be even more so. Polling summary The public were asked: Q.1 Britain has long-standing rules and principles that have been put in place to protect people from being arrested and wrongly held for an indefinite time in custody. I would like you to think about the amount of time people should be held in police custody before they are charged with an offence or are released. For each of the following scenarios please tell me how long you think people should be held in detention for questioning before they are charged or released? People who may be innocent or guilty of any offence Up to four days 29% Up to one week 22% Up to two weeks 19% Up to four weeks 13% Up to six weeks 10% Up to four days 8% Up to one week 16% Up to two weeks 20% Up to four weeks 22% Up to six weeks 29% Up to four days 6% Up to one week 10% Up to two weeks 13% Up to four weeks 32% Up to six weeks 36% Q.2 [To all respondents who think people who may be innocent or guilty of a terrorist offence should be held for up to six weeks.] Six weeks in custody is equivalent to the prison sentence which someone might serve if found guilty of an offence such as burglary or assault. Do you still think it is right to hold someone who may be innocent for so long? Yes 65% No 35% Other Questions Q.3 For each of the following please tell me whether you think the police should keep a person's DNA profile on a database permanently, whether there should be a time limit, or whether they should not keep them at all? If they are never charged with an offence, or are acquitted Keep permanently 25% Time limit 27% Not at all 47% Keep permanently 93% Time limit 6% Not at all <1% If they are convicted of a public order offence, such as being drunk and disorderly in England or Wales, or breach of the peace in Scotland Keep permanently 33% Time limit 47% Welsh finance commission to work with CalmanTom Griffin (London, The Green Ribbon): The Welsh Assembly Government marked the first anniversary of the Labour-Plaid Cymru One Wales Agreement today by announcing new details of the Commision that will look at the principality's tax and spending arrangements. The stakes in Glasgow EastTom Griffin (London, The Green Ribbon): Labour finally selected its candidate for the Glasgow East by-election last night, former Holyrood Minister Margaret Curran Conservatives should be hoping that Curran succeeds in holding off the SNP, according to former Telegraph leader writer Richard Ehrman. Terrorism Bill 'a fundamental attack' on inquestsTom Griffin (London, The Green Ribbon): The Counter Terrorism Bill continues its passage through Parliament today, with its second reading in the House of Lords. Most of the controversy around the bill has focused on 42-day detention, but there are a number of other provisions that deserve serious scrutiny. Inquest has produced a briefing that focuses on part 6 of the bill, which it calls "a fundamental attack on the independence and transparency of the coronial system in England and Wales." How to talk about good and bad, DavidAnthony Barnett (London, OK): Over at the Spectator James Forsyth argues that today's speech by Cameron in Glasgow will shift the ground on personal responsibility and public morality. I think people should take responsibility for their actions and their families. The wider public morality can't function without this. But I can't help feeling that Cameron doesn't do it for me and that he is playing to the dark side of our regime. If you want to see a speech that addresses the need for personal responsibility in a deep way, without flinching, then Obama's fathers day address does it. In contrast, there is a punative rather than forcefully educational tone to Cameron's rhetoric. It is also one-sided. He says that he has decided to stop being "sensitive" in his use of words, and we all know that politicians circumlocute most dreadfully. But this is what he says to business: Will Lords restore Northern Ireland's reputation at Westminster?Patrick Corrigan, (Amnesty Blogs: Belfast and Beyond): Will Northern Ireland's (non-DUP) Lords help restore Northern Ireland's Westminster reputation when the Government's counter-terrorism Bill comes to the upper house tomorrow? When the government won the vote at the Bill's first reading in the Commons by just nine votes, the chamber rang with jeers and furious cries of 'shame' directed at the DUP MPs who had just voted with Brown after an eleventh hour private meeting with the PM. A better way to fight terrorism?Tom Griffin (London, The Green Ribbon): The cost of Britain's surveillance society has reached £20 billion according to a report by the TaxPayers Alliance released today. The bill includes £19 billion for ID cards, £500 million for CCTV and £300 million for the DNA database. It shouldn't happen to a MuslimTom Griffin (London, The Green Ribbon): Channel 4's Dispatches strand marks the third anniversary of the 7/7 London bombings at 8 PM tonight with a documentary by Peter Oborne which asks whether the attacks have fuelled the rise of intolerance against British Muslims. The Great British public lend us your ears?Fair Deal (Belfast, Slugger O’Toole): Sinn Fein is trying to engage mainland opinion in favour of Irish unity but what are Ulster’s Unionists going to do? Throughout the Troubles, Unionism failed to engender significant public or establishment support in Great Britain. Equally, Unionism failed to engage in the battle of ideas. Northern Ireland was presented primarily as a security problem with a security solution. Read the rest of this post... Ben Kinsella R.I.P.
The All Wales Convention lines upTom Griffin (London, The Green Ribbon): The executive committee for the All Wales Convention was announced on Thursday, ahead of the body's first meeting on 14 July. Is religion a factor in Glasgow East?Tom Griffin (London, The Green Ribbon): Back in March I asked whether Labour is losing support among Scottish Catholics, the same question that politicalbetting.com has been considering today in an interesting thread on the Glasgow East by-election. The future for Scottish LabourTom Griffin (London, The Green Ribbon): The Scottish Labour Party has a lot to think about after the past traumatic few weeks. Once it has sorted out a candidate for the Glasgow East by-election, there is the small matter of a new leader in the Scottish Parliament. Debating David DavisDavid Davis thinks our liberty is in peril. Many on the liberal left agree. They may not be sure about the messenger, but they gave him a hearing last night in a Westminster debate sponsored by the Observer and Comment is Free. Backed up by Observer columnist Henry Porter, Davis took on Labour MP Denis McShane and David Aaronovitch of the Times at an event whose tone was acutely summed up by Ros Taylor: Ministers disregard PM on commons expenses
Tom Griffin (London, The Green Ribbon): It's been an unedifying few days for the House of Commons. Bill 'risks undermining counterterrorism efforts'Tom Griffin (London, The Green Ribbon): The House of Lords begins debating the Counterterrorism Bill on Tuesday, the day after the third anniversary of the 7/7 bomb attacks in London. In a briefing on the legislation released today, Human Rights Watch argues that detaining terrorism suspects for up to six weeks without charge violates the fundamental right to liberty and risks undermining counterterrorism efforts. Muslims under siegeStuart Weir (Cambridge, Democratic Audit): There is no such thing as the single monolithic “British Muslim community” that our politicians and media discuss. Britain’s one and a half million or so Muslims belong to a remarkably diverse set of communities; in all, it is estimated, there are over 50 ethnicities speaking almost 100 languages between them. Positive AngerBeing a young woman in a patriarchal society and having what our society calls feminist tendencies is not easy. I study English literature in Cairo University and 95% of my professors are women. When you are a 17 year old who is still trying to find herself and is surrounded by women who are strong, talented and independent, you start wondering why the society around you gives more importance to males and treats you as the inferior sex. Unlike many young women my age it was easy for me to understand and embrace feminism and gender equality because of the women I am surrounded, with beginning with my grandmother and mother, to my professors and friends. Knowing these women has definitely changed my perspective. I came to be more tolerant. I came to realize that our society does not just rate women as inferiors, but there are stereotypical images of men that all boys are expected to grow up and fit into. Those images do not just erase the male's identity but they enhance the ideas of male superiority and at times chauvinism. Being aware of that changed my anger into positive anger and that was when I started writing. Read the rest of this post...Brown And Straw defend renewalAnthony Barnett (London, OK): The Prime Minister appeared before the liason committee of chairs of Commons select committees this morning. Seems pretty sad. I am reproing below the blog account from the Guardian's Andrew Sparrow of the initial section of the proceedings on so-called 'constitutional renewal'. The question from Vaz is amusing. His reference to the governership of Burmuda is taken from Diane Abbott's speech in the 42 days debate, when she said that the House of Commons on the Labour side had been reduced to a "baazar". if you saw the clip after yesterday's PMQ when Vaz denied he had been offered a knighthood as his 'appropriate reward' but said there was still time, you may have noticed Abbott sitting right behind him - with an expression of grim satisfaction.
|
Anthony Barnett (London, 