Magna Carta repealed: nobody notices.

[davywavy]

Last 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 verlaine is only 13 years old.]

Comments

[twicedead.livejournal.com]

I voted Labour last time, but... I don't think the Tories would operate particularly differently.

[vulgarcriminal.livejournal.com]

These laws, here and in the US, terrify me. I think though, the perception is (as usual) it could never happen to me, it's just the brown people or the Muslims.

*sigh*

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Pointing fingers at other people and saying "Well, they'd be no better" doesn't actually answer any of the points raised above. As a Labour voter, are you proud of the way your support has been used? Will you continue to support them?
Let's face it, Michael Howard has lost my support after he said he's all for compulsory ID cards (at this rate I'll be voting UKIP, and I'd really rather not have to do so).
Will you vote Labour next time? Will you?

[davedevil.livejournal.com]

I am horified by the law passed, bizarely though its not entrely different from the interment possibilite sin the original Provention of Terrorism Act the Conservatives brought in in the 80's and that was for imprissonign the Irish.

UltimatlyI feel myself stuck with labour because there is no other option. I am politically opposed to the Cnservatives in almost every aspect, the Liberals maybe, but Kennedy is a clown evn if we could create an oposition out of them I would be worried about him in charge.

[borusa.livejournal.com]

PTA was passed by the Labour Government of 1974. Another embarrassment for us Labour supporters...

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

The Independant made a good point (unusually for them) when they observed that if it was the Conservatives locking up white people unlawfully it'd be all over the papers and the Socialist Workers would be on the streets; but as it's Labour locking up brown people all we're getting is a resounding silence.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Internment in Ireland was a Labour policy.
But still, blaming the Conservatives is a common piece of labour obfuscation, so I don't hold it against you.

[davedevil.livejournal.com]

ooh I stand corrected then, and offer my apology

[the-epicurean.livejournal.com]

I would love to vote for someone other than Labour. But the other choices scare the shit out of me. I can't vote conservative, and i'm worried that by voting for the Lib Dem's it'll put the tories in charge, which is just as scary if not more so. Even if it doesn't put the tories in, what would the lib dem's do with the power? It would be like letting a child run the country. Bah, burn them all, and elect me!! Me for Prime Minister, how'd you like to be my wing man "Mr Chancellor"?

[lanfykins.livejournal.com]

Why am I bothering? You've probably stopped reading by now, haven't you?

No. I've been feeling seriously worried by the ATCS Act since it was brought in. Unfortunately, I have neither sniper rifle nor knowledge of how to use it.

I felt apathetic about the last election (Wantage is a reasonably safe Tory seat, and after a hard day's work I didn't feel like going to the effort of finding out where the polling station was to cast a pointless vote), but I'm now feeling sufficiently incensed by this government that come the next election intend to let them know my displeasure, even though casting my vote has even less point now I'm in the Henley constituency.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

UKIP or Green appear to be the only possible choices left to me. I'm saddened by that, I really am.

[twicedead.livejournal.com]

Actually pointing fingers and saying "Well, they'd be no better" is a realistic response. In a representational democracy we always have to choose between the lesser of x weevils, and I will quite possibly choose Labour as my weevil in the next election because I cannot run thr country myself, and they are the only practical way to keep even greater weevils out of power.

I am not entirely happuy with the government, but this does not require me to automatically vote against them next election. i don't belive in protest votes, i balance up what I believe the potential good and evils of the next possible governments and choose the one that I believe is the best bet.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Good for you! Vote!

[twicedead.livejournal.com]

Oh, and I think the anti-terrorism act is crap. This is bad thing they have done.

[vulgarcriminal.livejournal.com]

Right before I refreshed the page, I was thinking that exact same thought.

Similar things happen in the motherland. When Clinton was supporting the Kosovars during that whole naughty NATO and Bosnia incident, people were virtually silent, Iraq happens and *wham* the liberals are getting out their gas masks and charging up the protest miles.

I've become an 'issues' voter, specifically due to situations like this.

[vulgarcriminal.livejournal.com]

Why be saddened? Loads of parties have fallen on the wayside through the course of government history. Perhaps Labour and the Tories are destined for the same fate as the Whigs.

'Tis good, a sign of progression, things get too big and then they split.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

balance up what I believe the potential good and evils of the next possible governments and choose the one that I believe is the best bet.

A: Good life for you and me at the price of
B: Some folks getting banged up without trial in contravention of, well, pretty much every law passed in the last thousand years

I have to ask: in your opinion, which side is the balance coming down on?

[the-epicurean.livejournal.com]

That is scary. to be honest, a vote for either seems to me, to be a waste of time. There will never be enough people voting for them, for either to make any serious headway. UKIP, scare me. The Greens have their heart in the right place, but what else do they offer? Little or nothing that would be of any real use in a modern political environment.

[raggedhalo.livejournal.com]

Green, you fool, Green!

(Sustainability => more opportunity for profit...)

[mooncadet.livejournal.com]

as an official uk brown person i have the absolute Fear. i feel somewhat helpless and uninformed and really, sad though it is, if it wasnt for people on livejournal i would know far less.

thanks you guys.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

UKIP are a one-issue party, and they're never a good idea. The Greens are economically hopeless bunnyhuggers, but at least they care about something.

[raggedhalo.livejournal.com]

You know, GWB looked at compulsory ID cards for the States and decided against.

[lanfykins.livejournal.com]

...this would be the time to mention my Lib-Demmy tendencies, right?

[raggedhalo.livejournal.com]

Economy < people. And we'll have neither if we carry on this way.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Exactly, but at least neither of them have promised to stripmine civil liberties.
Let's face it, it's taken a lot for the Conservatives to lose my vote, but Michael howard has managed the impressive feat of doing so.