In My View
Posted by Robert Walter, MP for North Dorset, at 08:24, Wed 18 June 2008:
This week I would like to stray from my usual focus on local issues to three very significant national and international events last week. On Wednesday the Government managed to persuade a majority of MPs to back their proposals to detain suspects up to six weeks without charge. The following day, my colleague David Davis resigned his seat to fight a by-election on this very issue, and his opposition to it. The same day the Irish people rejected, in a referendum, the Lisbon Treaty.
As many of you will know I opposed the extension of detention without charge, as I did when the Government tried to extend it to three months some years ago. On that occasion, after a stand off with the House of Lords, both houses agreed to a compromise at 28 days. I was unhappy with that outcome, but in a democracy politics is the art of the possible.
There is no terrorist suspect walking free today because the police did not have enough time to question him. Ministers have brought forward no evidence that we would be safer as a result of any extension to this current limit. There is ample evidence that the negative effects of detaining innocent people without trial alienates the very communities whose cooperation we need in the fight against terrorism. Internment in Northern Ireland was a disaster which probably prolonged the quest for peace by several years.
I am not soft on terrorism or those who perpetrate these horrible crimes. I am in favour of the toughest sentences for these murderers and their co-conspirators. What I am not in favour of is turning our backs on centuries of balanced justice and locking up innocent people without charge. A change in the law is definitely necessary to permit post-charge questioning. That would deal with any problems about sufficient time to collect evidence.
My view is simply that any denial of liberty to citizens of this free country in the fight against terror is itself a victory for those terrorists. I do not intend to give them any victories or any comfort in their vile attacks on our civilisation.
That said I really do have a great deal of admiration for the stand taken by David Davis. His campaign transcends party politics and he has supporters from all the major parties. I hope he succeeds in his quest to bring home to ordinary people that the denial of liberties that we grew up with is not the way to fight terror, or any other crimes.
Where does the Irish referendum fit into all this? I believe the referendum in a country that has benefited so much from its membership of the European Union was down to the arrogance of political elites. The failure of the British Government to adequately explain their so called anti terror laws is no different to the failure of politicians across Europe to explain to their peoples what has been done in their name over the last 30 years.
A referendum on an unintelligible treaty may not be the best way to gain public acceptance for a political project. But the shear arrogance of progressively changing this country’s relationship with its neighbours without adequate explanation to and acceptance by the British people is indefensible.
Comments
Commenting on this message is now disabled.
Posted by tim kelly, 10:28, Wed 18 June 2008: (Is this post abusive?) #
It was said in part: "My view is simply that any denial of liberty to citizens of this free country in the fight against terror is itself a victory for those terrorists. I do not intend to give them any victories or any comfort in their vile attacks on our civilisation."
I agree with you up to "vile attacks on our civilisation"
If peace is going to be an eventual choice, then some admission to which civilisation feels they have been "more attacked" might be a way forward.
It might not be politically/emotionally correct to see another point of view, especially at this time with emotions running high....indeed, it could lead to my being locked up for 42 days while they investigate my integrity (whats 42 x £3000? uh huh...£120,000 of tax payers money..). A stance of righteousness might see alot more bloodshed in the future than necessary. Our righteous indignation is no better or worse than our present "enemy". Which runs parallel to the argument about "denial of liberty to citizens of this free country in the fight against terror is itself a victory for those terrorists"
Our righteous indignation is also a victory for the terrorists. How was the peace arrived at in Ireland? Through righteous indignation? Or compromise through a back door?
Posted by Mr John Sutton, 11:54, Wed 18 June 2008: (Is this post abusive?) #
From: John Sutton On the subject of terrorism it baffles me that we can release into the open air Abu Qatada who came into this country on a forged passport and is therefore here illegally, who has a family supported by the taxpayerand and although subject to restrictions can remain at liberty to work his mischief. Surely if, as it would appear he is in our country illegally we can deport the man.
Do the Irish with their brave stand on the new treaty really expect any of those who represent us at the European Parliament to take any notice of the democratic vote they have had. I doubt it.