Tom Griffin (London, OK):With the Counter Terrorism Bill due to resume its passage though Parliament this week, Amnesty has launched a new petition against the provision to extend detention without charge to 42 days. The petition will be presented to Parliament if the legislation returns to the Commons, with individual MPs also being presented with signatures from their own constituents. Such opposition may yet help to force a Government U-turn in the wake of the Lords defeat predicted by today's Times: Gordon Brown is preparing for a humiliating climbdown over his proposal to hold terrorist suspects for 42 days after being told that it will be defeated in the House of Lords. Ministers admit privately that there is not “a cat in Hell’s chance” of the legislation, which returns to the Lords this week, being passed into law. The Government has decided against using the Parliament Act to force the measure through after peers reject it, The Times has learnt. That decision will effectively confine the controversial proposal — which the Prime Minister fought tooth and nail to get through a Commons vote in June — to the legislative dustbin.  Read the rest of this post...

Tom Griffin (London, OK): In a key intervention in the 42 days debate last month, the former head of MI5, Baroness Manningham-Buller stated: "arguments can be made to justify any time of detention, just as in other countries, although mercifully not here, they can be made to justify any method of interrogation." That remark elided key questions about how far the security services are complicit in interrogation practices overseas, questions which were raised anew in a High Court judgement on Thursday. Read the rest of this post...

Guy Aitchison (London, OK): There is a moving piece on Comment is Free today written by Hicham Yezza, the University of Nottingham employee arrested and held under the Terrorism Act for having an al-Quaida manual on his PC that had been downloaded from a US government website by his friend, Rizwaan Sabir, for use in postgraduate research. Yezza describes in powerful terms the fear and anguish he felt held in solitary confinement for days on end not knowing why. It's essential reading for those who would dismiss detention without charge as a minor inconvenience, nothing that a bit of compensation won't solve. Yezza's entire life has been devastated. Perhaps the worst part of the experience for Yezza was the feeling that his whole existence was now under question: Read the rest of this post...

Tom Griffin (London, OK): In order to get the the Counter-terrorism Bill through the Commons in June, the Government promised a parliamentary vote if it was necessary to extend the detention of terror suspects temporarily for up to 42 days. That proposal has been systematically taken apart today in a report from the House of Lords Constitution Committee which warns that Parliament is 'institutionally ill-equipped' for the role which is being thrust upon it. Read the rest of this post...

 Rosemary Bechler (London, openDemocracy): responds to Anthony Barnett's coverage of the campaign against 42 days: Thanks for the cogent reading of this important moment in the decline of the Westminster hall of mirrors. Doesn’t one need to include in a third episode in this drama? – the refusal of the two main political parties challenged in this bye-election to participate in debating the issues. For all the commenting and blogging, as in the case of the Iraq war and an ever-lengthening list of crucial decisions for the UK, we still have not been told why 42 days is deemed to be necessary to our national interest. All the talk simply obscures this ominous silence.  Read the rest of this post...

David (Cambridge, Britology Watch): There has been much discussion recently – including on Britology Watch – about whether English nationalism can be reconciled with progressive politics; and whether progressives need to espouse the nationalist cause, associate it with left-of-centre values, and thereby prevent it from falling into the hands of the far right.  Read the rest of this post...

Lyndon Radnedge, OK: Despite early bluster from Kelvin McKenzie and some calls from Davis supporters for an interesting candidate, no one has taken up the challenge to debate the 42-day issue in by-election form. Labour refused to stand and the Lib Dems claimed solidarity with David Davis’ cause.   Read the rest of this post...

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.  Read the rest of this post...

Stuart 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.  Read the rest of this post...

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.  Read the rest of this post...

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.  Read the rest of this post...

Guy Aitchison (London, OK): Courtesy of Benedict Brogan's blog is the following exchange of letters between Gordon Brown and David Davis. Davis had written to the PM, as well as Cabinet Ministers, last week to challenge them to a debate on 42 days and the state of freedom in Britain. Davis even suggested Labour MPs have been gagged by Brown to stop them engaging in the debate. Here is Brown's reply: Dear David As you know, Prime Ministers are available once a week at Question Time to debate all the issues of the day, and I was disappointed that you chose to step down as a Member of Parliament in advance of Question Time on Wednesday, 11 June rather than coming to the House to debate with me the issues around the use of CCTV and DNA evidence, and the measures we have taken to protect our national security. Nevertheless, the leader of your party has the opportunity each week to ask six questions on those issues that caused you to leave his Shadow Cabinet. He has had two such opportunities to date, but he has yet to ask any such question. He has two further opportunities to raise these issues before the 'by-election' on July 10th, and I am sure that if he shares your strong feelings about them, he will not duck those opportunities. Gordon Brown  Read the rest of this post...

Michael Calderbank (ERS): Alexandra Runswick commends David Davis for forcing a by-election for his Haltemprice and Howden seat and thereby raising a pertinent question about our concern for civil liberties, "regardless of whether this was the best way to do it". Whilst I share the widespread dissension from the government's insistence on 42 days, I don't think we can simply skate over the dubious democratic legitimacy of this artificially contrived by-election. Maybe Davis has indeed been successful in posing the question of "how much do you value your rights and freedoms", but it's far from clear that that's the only question being asked, and - more worryingly still - it is extremely unclear how this particular by-election is in a position to answer it conclusively. Whether the by-election is seen as a narrowly defined plebiscite on the question of 42 days, or on the wider philosophical question of our basic liberties, these are surely issues of concern to the nation as a whole. It is far from clear why a few thousand voters in a relatively affluent part of the rural East Riding of Yorkshire should get to arbitrate on our collective behalf. And were Davis to be re-elected with an increased majority, as seems likely, would the good burghers of this constituency feel assured that their liberties would be championed by an MP who supports the death penalty and attacks trade union rights? Would a resounding victory over Miss Great Britain and the Monster Raving Loony party really signify a historic expression of liberal resistance to an increasingly authoritarian state? Read the rest of this post...

The Green party campaign against David Davis has been launched by their candidate Shaun Oakes and strikes a dreadful note of holier than thou. They could hardly do more to turn people off politics if they tried. This is what its male spokesperson Derek Wall announced: "This by-election was supposed to be about civil liberties." Note the word “supposed”. It’s a classic, negative, snide attack implying Davis is a hypocrite. Wall continues:  Read the rest of this post...

Rupert Read (Norwich, The Green Party): The powers that be at Our Kingdom are welcoming the way Davis has called this highly-unusual byelection. I can understand that; I can understand the desire to applaud and welcome what he has done and what he is making possible. I said as much myself, in my earlier post on this on OK. But I think what we also need to be very clear about is that no way is David Davis any kind of poster boy for civil liberties. Much of what he believes in and much of his record is extremely antithetical to what many on OK take for granted. I fear that this fact has not fully emerged in most of what has been written on OK about this byelection campaign. Read the rest of this post...

Alexandra Runswick (London, Unlock Democracy): In resigning his seat and forcing a by-election, that's the question David Davis has been asking us over the past week. Regardless of whether this was the best way to do it, it is a pertinent question and one which needs to be answered. Unlock Democracy, and Charter 88 before it, have spent 20 years campaigning for democracy, rights and freedoms. We have been appalled, not just by Gordon Brown's plans to extend the amount of time individuals can be detained by the state without charge to 42 days, but at the way he intends to do it. This policy was not mentioned in Labour's manifesto. In the face of a backbench rebellion, the government only got this legislation through the House of Commons by the slimmest of margins. Now they could bypass the House of Lords completely through use of the Parliament Act. No country that prides itself on being a democracy should be able to abolish fundamental human rights without cross-party consensus. No responsible government should seek to do so in the first place. So we agree with David Davis that the time has come to draw a line in the sand. Fundamental to that is to make the case for a Bill of Rights and, ultimately, a written constitution to limit the powers of the state. The by-election in Haltemprice and Howden is a battle we cannot afford to not get involved in. As a non-aligned organisation, Unlock Democracy will not endorse Davis or indeed any candidate, but we do intend to take the fight for rights and freedoms to the streets of Hull and the East Ridings. We need your help to do this. Over the past few days we have been working out a campaign strategy. We intend to: Distribute a newspaper to every household in the constituency; Hold a public meeting; A street stall in every town. To pull this off in the timescale we have, we need £5,000. If everyone receiving this blog today made just a small contribution, we could raise this money with ease. For this reason I am asking you to make a contribution of £20 today. Of course, if you can afford £100 or £1,000, we aren't going to stop you! If you value your rights and freedoms and want to take a stand, please do make a donation.  Read the rest of this post...

This is an article written by Roger Gale, Conservative MP for North Thanet, in support of Davis Davis and his campaign. Roger Gale (Parliament): On Monday evening the Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, unveiled the light sculpture, "Breathing", at the BBC`s New Broadcasting House in Langham Place, London and the BBC`s Foreign Editor, John Simpson, read a specially commissioned poem written by James Fenton.* It was a moving experience. The monument, designed by the Spanish sculptor Jaume Plensa, stands in the memory of those journalists and their teams of assistants of all nations who have given their lives in the cause of telling to the world truths that others would prefer to have left untold. Since January of 2007 there have been two hundred and three such fatalities, not only in Afghanistan and Iraq but around the world. The most recent, who died on the 7th and 8th of this month respectively, were working for the BBC. Freedom of speech runs in tandem with those other liberties defined in statute and by custom in the United Kingdom since Magna Carta and more recently since the enacting of Habeas Corpus. The rights to say what we think, to go freely about our lawful business without interference from the State and not to be imprisoned without charge and fair trial are absolutely fundamental to our democratic way of life. Read the rest of this post...

Guy Aitchison (London, OK): In the first post on his campaign blog David Davis expands on the arguments he made on last night's Question Time (blogged earlier by Anthony), expaining why he supports 28 days but not 42 days detention without charge. Some have labelled his position inconsistent but - whether you agree with him or not - I think Davis sets out a pretty straightforward case on his blog. On the basis of evidence he has looked at with the Met and the Crown Prosecution Service he says he "can support 28 days pre-charge detention - as a necessary evil - but not a day more. Once we have introduced intercept evidence and post-charge questioning, and developed the use of plea-bargaining, it may be possible to reduce the limit below 28 days, without any risk to our security." Read the post in full here.    Read the rest of this post...

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): Three things struck me about last night's Question Time where David Davis was the main panellist. The BBC despise him and what he has done. I am not saying that a memo went out, but a corporate view was formed, instantly and deeply, that he needs to be banished to the outreaches of purgatory. I first sensed this munching a sandwich and listening to the World At One, when Martha Kearney asked a BBC researcher whether the opinion polls showing 65 - 69 per cent support for 42 Days might be as a result of asking the wrong, or at least a loaded, question. No, said the voice of the Corporation's research department, public opinion is overwhelmingly on side of 42 days - and, he implied, unshakably so. The BBC now seems to feel it has a vested interest in keeping it this way. Its fundamental charter that justifies its license fee is its duty to inform, educate and entertain. It does the first and the third all right. But does it educate? What if DD manages to take the issue of principle behind 42 days - that people should not be subject to arbitrary detention - to the public and in so doing moves public support of 42 days from 69 to, say, 49 per cent? He can only achieve this by education - by a three-week teach-in and genuine debate of the issues. If he can do that, won't it show up a lamentable feebleness of the Corporation and its failure to fulfil its mandate? Read the rest of this post...