New Labour, civil liberties and the war on terror
Posted on Thursday 7 June, 2007
Filed Under Civil Liberties
It can’t be that long before we run out of civil liberties for New Labour to crack down on. The three successive Blair administrations have effectively torn up the Geneva Convention on refugees, and repeatedly contravened the substance and spirit of the European Convention on Human Rights.
House arrest, arbitrary and punitive deportation, a shoot to kill policy on the streets of London? New Labour has flirted with them all. Even where it has been knocked back – Blair’s first defeat in the Commons came over his attempt to introduce detention without charge for up to 90 days – the government just keeps coming back for more:
Home Secretary John Reid has outlined a raft of proposals to toughen counter terror laws – including reviewing the 28-day limit on pre-charge detention.
He said he wanted cross-party agreement on the measures, which also include a law change to allow terrorist suspects to be questioned after being charged.
Plans also include a sex offender-style terrorist register, and a review into courts using intercept evidence.
Although Reid will not confirm it, the likelihood is that the Brown administration will seek a second bite at the 90 day detention cherry. That would be tantamount to the introduction of internment without trial by any other name, in a manner clearly targeted at ethnic minorities.
Civil libertarians among us now have to rely on the likes of David Davis – yes, that’s right, hard right Tory leadership contender David Davis – to point out that such measures are indeed ‘draconian’.
Just because a law is labelled ‘anti-terror legislation’ that does not mean it will actually succeed in preventing any terrorism. Victims so far have including an old man heckling at Labour Party conference, people guilty of the heinous offence of wearing T-shirts carrying anti-Blair slogans, and some young Indian guy denied the chance to board his flight after a taxi driver grassed him up for listening to the Clash on his iPod.
Will they now run the risk of ending up on New Labour’s ‘sex offender-style terrorist register’ too? And what good will a ‘sex offender-style terrorist register’ do anyway, other than act as a direct incitement to lynch law by tabloid instigation?
And are we really saying that the current security situation is today more perilous than it was in either of two world wars or the cold war? If not, these pernicious proposals should be immediately interned for an indefinite period.
<<Go back
Comments
14 Responses to “New Labour, civil liberties and the war on terror”
-
- Yemen: an unfinished revolution
- Comment Is Free: An honours system for those who fight to make Britain a better place
- Democracy crushed; elected President arrested; World wrings its hands
- Fabians change policy on unpaid internships
- Kamal al-Fayoumi arrested as Egyptian regime retaliates to strikes
-
-
Meta
-
Yes indeed Dave and this is the party which you see as being where socialists should be in the UK in the 21st century.
When the creeping police state rounds up your friends, family or comrades try and remember that, honest guv, it was nothing to do with us says the Labour left.
Eddie,
As Dave has pointed out, this legislation has actually been used against one prominent member of the Labour left.
The only reason that 90 days detention/internment wasn’t introduced back in November 2005 was because the parliamentary wing of the Labour Left voted against it – and don’t you go forgetting that fact.
As you know, I have the same line as you on civil liberties and the rise tide of Islamophobia in this country. Like other members of the Labour Left, we are fighting against the reactionary and draconian measures being introduced by the New Labour faction. Therefore it is unfair of you to suggest that the Labour Left is either complacent on this issue or even ignoring it.
And whether you like it or not, the Labour Left is far bigger than your now imploded party. Just as an example: there are three Labour MSPs who are members of the Scottish Labour Campaign for Socialism – including the prominent socialist campaigner Elaine Smith. Several members of the SSP defected to the Labour Party during the course of John McDonnell’s election campaign.
I can promise you this – the Labour Left will do all that it can to fight any new reactionary and draconian measures introduced by the New Labour clique. Fortunately, we have a parliamentary presence so we are in a position to put our money where our mouth is.
Eddie
As I explained to you in Edinburgh, lefties in England have four choices:
(1) Non-involvement in organised left politics
(2) Trot/tankie microsect
(3) Respect
(4) Labour Party
Yeah, I know. Not a very appetising menu, is it? I’ve opted for Labour. But what would you pick instead, smartarse?
I’d pick civility, fishface.
“sex offender-style terrorist register” LOL, So just to get this stright, If for example I’m found guilty of whereing a big coat in the middle of summer (and I do), then I go on this register?
The sex offender’s register stop’s you working with children, what would a terrorist register do? Stop me working as an Iman (not being Muslim, that’s not likely to be an issue)?
Scott mat try to trivalise the issue of a terrorists’ register, but shouldn’t there be some way of keeping track of these people. The shooting of \jean-Charles Mends was a tragic mistake, perhaps if there had been more information on the man they were really lloking for it wouldn’t have happened. Anyway, presumably you only go on the sex offenders’ register when you have been convictd of something, not ust for ‘lurking’ or ‘touching your flies every time a woman walks past’, so why should you be put on a terrorist register for wearing a big coat? That intelligence might be noted somewhere of course, but that’s not the same thing.
Sue – I wouldn’t presume anything where New Labour’s law and order legislation is concerned. You can get put on the SO Register for accepting a caution as well as being proved guilty. Lots of people accepted police cautions in the increasingly notorious Operation Ore; the chance that they were all guilty is slim. As for ‘keeping track of these people’, that’s exactly what the people trailing de Menezes were doing – they had an address and a photo, and when they saw a brown-skinned individual leaving the building in question they thought they had their man.
Off topic but news all the same.
Of course there’s a terrorist register – MI5′s Registry. What, in a nutshell, does the security service do if not keep files on terrorists?
Interesting, I have seen no coverage at all in the Britsh press about cricketer Imran Khan’s legal action against London resident MQM leader for the deaths of 42 pro democracy protesters.
http://socialistunity.blogspot.com/2007/06/pakistans-biggest-terrorist-protected.html
Do new labour only care about terrorism against white people? Or is it not terrosism if it is defending the rule of a british ally? Or is it not terrorism if it is done by secular fascists?
I would be intersted in John Reid’s thinking on that.
“Do new labour only care about terrorism against white people? Or is it not terrosism if it is defending the rule of a british ally? Or is it not terrorism if it is done by secular fascists?”
Well there’s no offical deffinision of terrorist, The closest we have is from Mr T Blair and it goes something like this “We all know what terrorism is.” Well we don’t because theres no offical (read leagle) def. So am I a terrorist for calling for the end of Bourgeour democracry? may be, may be not. The US goverment do however have a def. and it goes something like this “Any one who uses or calls for violence to over throw or infulance democractly elected goverments”… Now at the risk of sounding like and SWPer, Saddam was democraticlay elected…
What in effect it means it anyone who hurts us or our friends.
“Now at the risk of sounding like and SWPer, Saddam was democraticlay elected…”
Excuse me?
“Vote for me and don’t get shot” isn’t my definition of a “democratic” election.
Well there’s no offical deffinision of terrorist
That will come as a surprise to 50-odd students I know. Don’t say we’ll have to remark all those papers…
Here‘s the text of the 2000 Terrorism Act, which laid down the current legal definition of terrorism. (A rough plain-English summary would be “the use or threat of politically-motivated violence against people, property or computer systems”.) Share and enjoy.
Thanks Phil I stand corrected.