Is victory on 42 days possible?
I was always a bit worried the home office was going to be able to pass into law its plan to allow the police to potentially hold people without charging for 42 days. But the Guardian reports today that the Cabinet is split on the issue. I still get the feeling the Guardian is being optimistic here and giving the impression Jacqui Smith is in more trouble than she actually is.
More significantly, two things happened on Monday to push the government further into a corner. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (the newer version of the Commission for Racial Equality) said it may launch a legal challenge if the legislation goes through. In my view this may be the best way to over-turn this legislation. If Trevor Phillips’s crew can show this legislation disproportionately discriminates against Muslims, he could end up being their best friend. How funny is that?
Also on Monday the Indy said that a letter drawn up by Amnesty International and signed by “leading cultural figures” (and me) was being sent to Gordon Brown. Actually they were meant to publish it, like the letter I got into the Guardian a few weeks ago, but never mind.
| Post to del.icio.us |
Filed in: Current affairs
Point taken, but the sentiments here really avoid the tough question of why civil liberties have come to be seen and portrayed as a lowest common denominator in the popular mind. At the moment, there is a distinct tabloid-style mindset that civil liberties and/or human rights are a ‘criminal’s charter.’
Civil liberties groups seem to want to duck the tough issues – that (for example) CCTV is seen by some people and businesses, rightly or wrongly, to offer some greater security. For as long as campaigners want to have a debate in grand terms about what a grand jury did in 1681 and Ben Franklin quotes the case will be abstract at best.
This may be very nice when your audience is politicians and pressure group activists, but that will cut no ice against shouts of, ’soft on terror.’ Nor should it.
Sunny, I can only admire the depth of your conviction and belief but with all due respect, the sentiments here highlight the real problem faced by civil liberties campaigners. Yes, the erosions are about populism and opinion polls but I see no public campaign to face down that populism, change those polls and make a real-world pro-civil liberties argument. Nothing in the article faces down the cries of, ’something must be done,’ or shows any sign of making a debate on populist terms.
You may not like it but the absolutist ‘tough government’ or ‘lilly livered’ approach is the politics of rationality in the current climate surrounding these issues. Do you think that the Sun or an opposition would hesitate to shout, ’soft on terror’ the moment events allow? Look at the press cuttings from the Glasgow Airport bombings.
Truthfully, whilst the article is long on criticism, I see nothing here that goes beyond preaching to a choir that has singularly failed to shift the terms of debate. With all respect it is not AI, leading cultural figures or the ECHR who really need to be the targets of a campaign.
Sorry.