Magna Carta repealed: nobody notices.
Dec. 20th, 2004 10:24 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
davywavyLast week the Law Lords pronounced that the indefinite detention of terror suspects without trial, as practiced by the Government under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act, was unlawful. Not content with that, the Law Lords went on to say that: "[This case] calls into question the very existence of an ancient liberty of which this country has until now been very proud: freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention."
However, new Home Secretary Charles Clarke and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw have both issued statements which can be summarised as "La la la, we're not listening."
Should we be worried, or even unhappy about this? I'd say so, yes. The principle of not imprisoning people unlawfully has been on the statute books for the best part of the last thousand years, since it was formally introduced on the Magna Carta:
"A freeman shall not be amerced for a slight offense, except in accordancewith the degree of the offense; and for a grave offense he shall be amerced inaccordance with the gravity of the offense... and none of the aforesaid amercements shall be impsedexcept by the oath of honest men of the neighborhood."
What does this mean? It means trial by jury before banging someone up. The modern legal interpretation of this phrase is along the lines of "You can't lock someone up unless it either be by action of the law or judgement of their peers in the form of a jury." As the law by which the internees have been locked up has been declared illegal, and no trail by jury has taken place...oh, sod it. Why am I bothering? You've probably stopped reading by now, haven't you?
In the light of this I'd like to ask people to fill in a poll, just to know how you're thinking:
[Poll #406257]
As the Law Lords have ruled that the laws contravene EU Human right legislation, it means that Human Rights lawyers are going to have a field day in fees in the light of the Governments refusal to take action. If I were the sort of fellow who delights in Conspiracy Theories, I'd point out that the law is being driven by the Prime Minister, whose wife is a senior partner with Matrix Churchill - a major human right law office who are an organisation which stands to do Very Well Indeed out of this situation. Happily, the Law Lords have ordered that the cost of paying for appeals against any unlawful imprisonments are to be met by the government - and that is you and me, who cough up the taxes to fund the government. So we'll pay lawyers to challenge the legal framework put in place by the administration who we pay for. Great.
Still, at least Tony and Cherie will have a nice nest-egg for their retirements, won't they?
[Edit: I am surprised to learn that![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
verlaine is only 13 years old.]
However, new Home Secretary Charles Clarke and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw have both issued statements which can be summarised as "La la la, we're not listening."
Should we be worried, or even unhappy about this? I'd say so, yes. The principle of not imprisoning people unlawfully has been on the statute books for the best part of the last thousand years, since it was formally introduced on the Magna Carta:
"A freeman shall not be amerced for a slight offense, except in accordancewith the degree of the offense; and for a grave offense he shall be amerced inaccordance with the gravity of the offense... and none of the aforesaid amercements shall be impsedexcept by the oath of honest men of the neighborhood."
What does this mean? It means trial by jury before banging someone up. The modern legal interpretation of this phrase is along the lines of "You can't lock someone up unless it either be by action of the law or judgement of their peers in the form of a jury." As the law by which the internees have been locked up has been declared illegal, and no trail by jury has taken place...oh, sod it. Why am I bothering? You've probably stopped reading by now, haven't you?
In the light of this I'd like to ask people to fill in a poll, just to know how you're thinking:
[Poll #406257]
As the Law Lords have ruled that the laws contravene EU Human right legislation, it means that Human Rights lawyers are going to have a field day in fees in the light of the Governments refusal to take action. If I were the sort of fellow who delights in Conspiracy Theories, I'd point out that the law is being driven by the Prime Minister, whose wife is a senior partner with Matrix Churchill - a major human right law office who are an organisation which stands to do Very Well Indeed out of this situation. Happily, the Law Lords have ordered that the cost of paying for appeals against any unlawful imprisonments are to be met by the government - and that is you and me, who cough up the taxes to fund the government. So we'll pay lawyers to challenge the legal framework put in place by the administration who we pay for. Great.
Still, at least Tony and Cherie will have a nice nest-egg for their retirements, won't they?
[Edit: I am surprised to learn that
verlaine is only 13 years old.]
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-12-20 12:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-20 12:09 pm (UTC)I think war is probably with us forever as well. It's traditional.*
What would be considered a positive outlet?
*This opinion brought to you by Civ 3 where I'm currently kicking the shit out of the French for their iron.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-20 12:10 pm (UTC)*grin*
no subject
Date: 2004-12-20 12:18 pm (UTC)I say we form a new political party, one based on moshing.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-20 12:24 pm (UTC)It gets more and more plausible...or does it?
no subject
Date: 2004-12-20 12:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-20 12:30 pm (UTC)*grin*
no subject
Date: 2004-12-20 12:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-20 12:37 pm (UTC)All seems pretty reasonable to me. Guaranteed to snag a certain section of the electorate.
Probably need some policies though. But they can wait.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-20 12:38 pm (UTC)Motto: 'Get a job and leave our homos alone!'
no subject
Date: 2004-12-20 12:39 pm (UTC)I like the motto, though!
no subject
Date: 2004-12-20 12:46 pm (UTC)At heart I'm a traditional Republican. I likes my money, think people should work and don't give a flying about what happens with the heathen masses when they're in a toilet/bedroom or dungeon ;).
no subject
Date: 2004-12-20 12:58 pm (UTC)Sweet Jesus, I was starting to like you!
A Republican?
*cries*
no subject
Date: 2004-12-20 01:06 pm (UTC)The old kind, the isolationist kind, the kind that believed in small government... tiny government, freedom, rights!
That kind...
Not the new kind. They scare me. I think, if the Libertarians were coherent, I'd probably be one of them.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-20 01:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-20 02:16 pm (UTC)http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/extremeright.php
As for me, I'm -8.38 on the Communism/Neo-Liberal scale (making me considerably more left wing than before) and -6.00 on the authoritarian/libertarian scale.
Libertarian Left, then...
no subject
Date: 2004-12-20 02:23 pm (UTC)I'm close to Ghandi. ;)
Do ya know, all of Senor Wade's posts about political bits have made me reassess. I used to be like, totally liberal, flaming liberal even and then I was an anarchist.
Now, I'm not sure. Trying to sort it all out is making my head go WOM WOM WOM.
We should totally develop a new party.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-20 02:27 pm (UTC)*grin*
Honestly, I'm an evolutionary anarchist; I believe that we shouldn't need to be ruled from on high, but that we're not really ready to take collective responsibility for ourselves yet and won't be for another long while. In the meantime, we should do all we can to make people realise that we need to keep an eye out for each other or it's all doomed.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-20 03:36 pm (UTC)Sounds good to me.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-20 03:52 pm (UTC)Which part of "we need to keep an eye out for each other" is it that you aren't scanning properly?
And, even if you can contort my position to be that of the Conservatives, the time for disengagement is some decades, if not centuries, hence. In the meantime, providing a benevolent structure that can eventually just be a framework for human interaction is key.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-21 05:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-20 12:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-20 12:35 pm (UTC)See, now we're talking. Modern take on ancient tactics. Oh yes.
Who's going to import the cigars?