You’re not going to like this…

What I am about to say will, I realise, make me pretty unpopular with some of you – especially if you take the Daily Mail, but it needs saying regardless…

Politicians are falling over themselves at the moment to express their shock that Abu Qatada has been released from prison, albeit on possibly the most restrictive bail conditions ever imposed in British legal history. They claim he’s a “dangerous” “extremist” “fundamentalist” preacher of hate, and that he constitutes a serious threat to our national security.

All of the above claims surrounding the man may, or perhaps may not, be true. We don’t know. The reason we don’t know is that despite being held in custody for over six years, we didn’t actually get around to charging the guy with anything. In SIX years. So what’s the problem then? A lack of evidence? Apparently not – it’s just that the “evidence” cannot be presented before a court of fear of the damage that might result to both ongoing operations and operatives themselves in the field. At least, this is what we are being told – so we can’t use the courts. That’s, erm, inconvenient. So our response, as a national that claims to value civil liberties and freedom, is to hold him without trial. I am, to put it mildly, ashamed.

We’ve tried to deport him back to Jordan, only to be thwarted by the European Court Of Human Rights, who are concerned that he might be subjected to a trial in Jordan that could be tainted by evidence gained under torture – therefore making both the evidence suspect and the trial itself unfair. This of course would be in conflict with his human right to a fair trial.

The term “Human Right” here is very important, because such rights apply universally – to everyone. If we decide that they can be applied selectively, then they cease to be rights – merely recommendations / guidelines / “nice to haves”. In essence, if these rights apply to you and I, then they should apply to Qatada – indeed anyone at all – even unpopular, inconvenient people that the state would rather be rid of.

The current plan to try to get the deportation going is to send a Minister over to Jordon to ask very nicely if they wouldn’t mind awfully signing a little undertaking promising that evidence gleaned through torture will not be used in any proceedings against him. I dare say the Jordanians won’t have any major difficulties with that idea, seeing as despite Amnesty Internationals view somewhat to the contrary, Jordan maintains that torture simply doesn’t happen there. But does an undertaking, itself based on a refusal to admit the truth, really count for anything? I would have to say no.

A number of politicians are now advocating sending Qatada to Jordon anyway, in defiance of the Court. This is an absolutely incredible position for them to take – let’s simply abandon the rule of law when we don’t like what it says. A fair and just society does not pick and choose which laws to follow, and does not act in open defiance of the courts…

Given that Islamic Fundamentalists are running around constant claiming that followers of Islam are somehow treated as second class citizens by the state, the wisdom of simply ignoring Qatada’s rights seems to be somewhat suspect in itself. Such action would only cement the notion in the minds of many young muslims – and if you think Qatada is a problem now, wait and see how much more so he becomes when he can start pointing at verifiable facts rather than fundamentalist bile…

So what should we do with him them? Probably like yourself, I’m not crazy about the idea of his walking around, free to continue his campaigns. So, I humbly present the following idea – that we treat Abu Qatada exactly the same as we treat Fred Bloggs – gather evidence of his misdeeds and try him before an open court. One imagines that with offences such as “Incitement to Religious Hatred” on the statute books, this ought not to prove too taxing. Maybe the CPS could find time to devote to this during the breaks in the #TwitterJokeTrial, which they seem rather keener to prosecute.

Qatada might well be a serious danger to this country, but if we overlook his human rights, indeed overlook the courts, then he will be one at least in part of our own making.

#TwitterJokeTrial again!

Last Wednesday, together with a number of other supporters of Paul Chambers, I found myself sat in the High Court in London to witness the latest hearing concerning the #TwitterJokeTrial. If you don’t know what that is, really – do try to keep up… I’ve discussed the trial extensively, and a quick visit to Google should tell you everything you need to know.

We found ourselves before the High Court because Paul’s Crown Court Appeal against his conviction failed, meaning we were left with something called an “Appeal Against Case Stated”. I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that this means that we do not disagree with the findings of the Crown Court, but rather with the manner in which they chose to apply the law. This seemed an odd strategy to me, particularly in light of the fact that most supporters took exception with just about everything the Crown Court said, but lest we forget, I am not a lawyer. No – I’m a muppet – Paul’s legal team are some of the best legal minds in the country, so I defer to their infinitely better judgement on that one.

Essentially though, the case seems to have been reduced the a point where the court are satisfied that the offence is made out, and Paul’s fate seems to rest on his right to Freedom of Expression in Article 10 of the European Convention On Human Rights. My understanding (gleaned through osmosis whilst sat at the back of the court) is that the right to freedom of expression is not absolute – there are legal caveats for matters such as national security etc – but the underlying principle is that you’re free to say what you like.

In order to test whether or not Paul’s freedom of expression has been lawfully restricted, the High Court will now have to determine whether in light of the content, context and intended audience of the tweet, prosecution for the tweet was truly a proportionate response. If they find (as I hope) that it wasn’t, Paul gets his legal slate cleaned, and can begin the process of rebuilding his life. If not, well, we’ll come to that in a moment.

An important thing to realise at this point though is that if Paul wins by way of a lack of proportionality in the decision to bring the prosecution in the first place, this will still leave intact the finding by Doncaster Crown Court that the message was “Menacing and obviously so…”, together with idea that such a message constituted an offence. Which means that in terms of freedom of expression for the rest of us, all our fears are realised. Just a few things to consider :

• The judiciary, despite being ignorant of social media, are making judgements on it.
• When testing any message, it will no longer be considered important whether the author intended it to be menacing / threatening, but rather whether anyone (even a fictional person) might reasonably find it so. That’s a fundamental shift.
• Does a website owner, who can be argued to have caused a message appearing on the site to have been sent, become liable for unsafe content made by users of his / her site?
• The fact that this law extends well beyond mere mis-interpretted humour, but to ANYTHING we post online.

So, if Paul does win on proportionality grounds, it will certainly be a victory, but for the rest of us on the internet perhaps a somewhat hollow one. Still, a win is a win, and an end to the ridiculous impact this case has had on Paul and Sarah’s lives cannot come soon enough…

So what if Paul loses? Well, if that happens, the first decision to be taken will be whether Paul wishes to continue to fight. If he doesn’t want to continue the battle, then frankly I think it is incumbent on all his supporters to respect his position. I will – continuing to fight will be every bit as stressful as it has already proven so far, and so the decision to fight on is Paul’s alone.

If he does fight, then my understanding is that we’ll probably be looking at the Supreme Court, and from there (again, assuming he continues to fight) Europe.

One thing is certain however, is Paul does fight on, he is going to need support. I dare say we’ll be organising fundraising, public awareness and (entirely peaceful) protest – but these all come later. First order of business is to get the decision from the High Court – then either go out and get ratted / allow Paul time for reflection (delete as applicable at the time).

Regardless of how things transpire, he will continue to have my complete support.

Which brings me on to a final point – Paul is finding it very difficult to secure employment due to both his conviction and the notoriety of the case. So, if you’re in the Belfast area and looking to recruit a hard working, intelligent, loyal and grateful sort of chap, and you’re not minded to hold this matter against him, let him know about it! (@pauljchambers).

Our time has come…

On Wednesday, the #TwitterJokeTrial has what will almost certainly be it’s last hurrah before The High Court in London. Ideally of course that will be because the judge strikes down Paul’s conviction – and personally I think that is quite likely – but should the worst happen then I personally doubt Paul will want to take this further to The Supreme Court – it’s been a taxing enough experience already.

I was going to go into somewhat more detail in this post, but time doesn’t permit. Suffice it to say then that I’ll be there on Wednesday, and I’ll have more to say once we have a verdict, which is unlikely to be on the day.

 

 

Dorries being Dorries again…

My favourite MP really has gone too far this time. In Sunday’s Observer, she actually came out with the following:

“[Thanks to the expenses scandal] it’s a place of monks and millionaires. I was with an MP the other day, and his wife rang him. She was at the supermarket checkout and her debit card had been refused. They had no money in their account. He was just distraught, and all because he’s too scared to claim travel expenses, scared of what the local paper will write if he does. People are starving, poor things.”

That’s an amazing statement from someone who is actually supposed to be representing her constituents – many of whom are in low paid menial jobs, many more of whom are through no fault of their own unemployed. If the people of Mid Bedfordshire ever needed a simple demonstration of why they really must try to take elections a little more seriously in future, then there it lies folks…

Still, an MP’s life hangs in the balance, so let’s tackle Nadine’s claims head on.

The local paper Nadine will have no issue at all with an MP claiming legitimate travel expenses. Nor will I, and nor will Tim Ireland. Legitimate expenses are, well, legitimate. Your friend is perfectly at liberty to submit his expenses, and so long as he only makes legitimate claims, he has nothing to fear.

If he cannot see that, if in his judgement he really has to starve both his wife and himself rather than claim legitimate money that he is perfectly entitled to, then perhaps he should consider another role in society – he’s not cut out for life as an MP.

That these words could come from an elected representative of the people is shocking. If Nadine really thinks that people earning £65,000 a year are starving, then she really needs to come back and visit planet Earth some time…

On a personal note, I started a relationship with a young lady a few weeks ago. My girlfriend, whom we’ll call Kirsty for the sake of this conversation, is a teaching assistant at a school some ten miles from her home. She has a four year old daughter, a degree in Child Development, and works 20 hours per week. The cupboards have been bare – they were last week, which ended in my forcing Kirsty to accept a little help with a few things…

Kirsty is, quite rightly a proud woman. She should be – she’s doing an amazing job of raising her daughter, she’s holding down a job, she’s keeping a lovely clean home for the two of them – basically doing absolutely everything you would hope a mother would. She doesn’t like accepting help, and finds it to be a little demeaning. She feels, not unreasonably, that perhaps since she went out there and earned a degree, then came into public service in a vital role helping to teach our youngsters, that perhaps she really ought to have a tenner to herself every now and then.

The truth though, sadly, is very different. The truth is that I know Kirsty places her daughter’s interests ahead of her own. I know Kirsty has skipped meals so that her daughter would have plenty to eat. That’s just how things are at the moment.

Things are however going to get a lot worse, because it’s just been decided that Kirsty has been overpaid in terms of benefits, and so the government would like over £2,000 back, thanks very much. Apparently, the onus was on Kirsty to spot the errors in the assessment they carried out, and that they sent to her, when she opened it. The fact that Kirsty is not a benefits expert is not, it would seem, of any relevance here – and a good woman who is already skimping on her own food for the sake of her daughter has just been told that she will have to pay back £23 per week.

So, if this is how Kirsty, as a law abiding public servant, is to be treated, then I don’t really have a lot of time for MPs who are worried about their expenses. True, this is helped in part by the fact that I don’t personally believe Nadine’s story in the first place, but all the same – MPs need to stop bleating about their own petty self interest and get on with the job.

Yes – it is rough out there – the rest of us have bloody noticed!

If as a government you are happy to literally take food out of the mouth of a four year old over a mistake YOU made, then you know what?  I don’t give a flying fuck if you don’t find scrutiny to your liking. Deal with it – the rest of us have to, and if you’d like a tip we find that only making honest claims in the first place simplifies matters considerably…

Stop whining, stop bleating, and start doing your bloody jobs.

One of our articles is missing…

Toward the back end of July, you might recall I got involved in the case of #DaftArrest – the use of the police against political campaigner and blogger Jacqui Thompson for the heinous crime of, erm, filming a public meeting.

As part of that campaign to try and get a little common sense into the whole affair I wrote an open letter to Mark James, the Chief Exec of Carmarthen Country Council (the authority involved), and he responded. His response was remarkable, to the extent that I gave him a chance to retract it prior to publication – which I was not taken up on.

Unfortunately, the dispute between Mrs. Thompson and the Council has now come to a point where Mrs. Thompson has decided to bring a libel action in the High Court. Accordingly, I have also received a request that the article should no longer be published, and have therefore accordingly moved the  post onto a “private” area of the blog.

I am happy to provide any information required by either side in the dispute, and regret that things have now gotten this point.

 

Poppy burning again…

It seems that a group of young lads in Northern Ireland have been prosecuted for making a Facebook video in which they burned poppies… You can find a link to the story here

Now, obviously what they have done here is shameful – that’s not up for debate. It will be interpreted as a slap in the face for our servicemen, and particularly those who have been killed or injured in the course of conflict…

But, is it a criminal act? Is it really “Incitement to Hatred”? If it is, does that law need to be redefined? And when did the “Improper use of a social network” act come into play exactly?

Once again, we are supposed to have freedom of expression in this country. This confers the right – the absolute right – to say something others might consider offensive. Once said, others are of course free to criticise – to point out what an arsehole someone is being – but it shouldn’t be a criminal matter. This is the thin end of a very big wedge…

 

 

Is it time the #OccupyLSX protest moved on?

Time to move on?

St. Paul’s Cathedral have now asked the @OccupyLSX protest to leave their current site just outside the cathedral itself, and it seems that the protesters have now taken a vote and decided to stay despite the request from the cathedral itself…

I’ve been trying to decide what I think about that… As anyone who knows me will attest, I support the right to peacefully protest. I actually think it is to be encouraged, it forces people to give some thought to the issues that affect us all, and is a completely separate concept to the too often seen spectacle of a band of unwashed tossers rioting in the streets. Noel Coward lads – that’s where it’s at…

Now, the more conventional side of my personality says that the protesters have clearly outstayed their welcome, and so should really move on. These things are rarely as simple as they first appear though, so let’s look into what the actual problem is… Let’s consider the statement from the Dean of St. Paul’s here…

The Dean invites us to consider the “practical and safety issues” raised – presumably raised by the entirely peaceful protesters, with the underlying “good atmosphere generally between Cathedral staff and those dwelling in the tents around St Paul’s“. So we’re not exactly talking about rampaging gangs of protesters knocking little old ladies to the ground – it seems reasonable to conclude even from the Dean’s statement that the protesters are being entirely peaceable and reasonable in their conduct…

However, it seems that having spoken with their “independent Health, Safety and Fire Officers”, the cathedral has “no lawful alternative but to close St Paul’s Cathedral until further notice.“. Really? Maybe the protesters should immediately leg it over to Scotland Yard instead! The immense power in their hands lol… Being fair to the Dean, he does make a valid point about the fuels and combustible materials that the protest has brought in it’s midst – and I (sincerely) accept that the stone building is actually not invulnerable to fire. I have my reservations about whether a protester’s cooking stove is truly likely to explode in so dramatic a fashion as to ignite the roof timbers, but after all this is Health and Safety land, and one can’t be too careful…

I would like to call out the Dean on one of his “simple things”…

“We have done this with a very heavy heart, but it is simply not possible to fulfil our day to day obligations to worshippers, visitors and pilgrims in current circumstances. “

“But today is about our ability, practically, to carry on our mission with free and open access to this public space and treasured place and I hope that the protestors will understand the issues we are facing, recognise that their voice has been legitimately heard, and withdraw peacefully.”

I’m told that a ticket to visit the Cathedral for an adult costs £14.50.

It is hard, in the light of that, to understand how the Dean feels he has any a claim of “free and open access”. Could a homeless person with no resources simply walk in off the street and wander through the supposed House of God in quiet contemplation? How would Christ feel about the deliberate exclusion of the disadvantaged from his church?

I’m afraid I look on a cathedral with a £14.50 admission fee and 200 staff as being more of a business than a place of worship, so appeals to my conscience on that score are not going to hold much sway… The Cathedral Restaurant with it’s sparkling wines, cucumber sandwiches and clotted cream teas didn’t help either…

However, there are costs to the continuing protest, and not only financial ones… I’m told that the cathedral was supposed to be hosting a wedding service today for example, which has now had to be cancelled in the light of events. Clearly that will involve a lot of distress to a couple on what was supposed to be one of the happiest days of their lives, as well as their invited guests. Whilst it’s true that anyone having a wedding at St. Paul’s is hardly likely to be “as poor as a church mouse”, I don’t think the size of their bank balance has any relevance to whether the disruption is justified….

More importantly, one also hopes that the church involves itself in a number of activities to help those less fortunate in it’s surroundings (although I could find no reference to any such activities on their website…). Any disruption to this sort of activity could have very serious consequences, far more serious than any re-arranged wedding…

All in all then, I personally think that the protesters should move on, and reform the protest in a different location. I also think the church should be ashamed of themselves.

It will interesting to see how things turn out…

The strange case of the #PamBot

Readers will probably remember that, a few months ago, I got involved with the furore concerning #DaftArrest – the case of a lady who was arrested for the heinous crime of trying to record, in a public meeting, what her local council got up to… I engaged with the Chief Executive of Camarthenshire Council, one Mr. Mark James, and we had a bit of debate on this very blog. It would not be unfair, I think, of me to describe his performance as “somewhat disappointing”.

I’ve followed the lady the case concerned, Jacqui Thompson, on Twitter throughout the intervening period. I like her blog – she has a good writing style and a penchant for exposing things the council would rather not have exposed – sort of like a micro Private Eye…

It has become clear however through her comments, together with those of others (including councillors), that the problems at Camarthenshire seem to extend beyond the #DaftArrest case – and I now have serious concerns as to whether the council is truly operating in a democratic manner, or whether it is truly accountable to the people it supposedly serves…

This being the case, I was delighted to learn of the Council’s intentions for Local Democracy Week – they had decided to have one of the Councillors from the Executive Board actively tweet for the duration of the week… Now, Twitter as we all know is very much a two way mechanism – indeed it’s the ethos of “engagement” that makes it particularly well suited when it comes to political discourse – so I bided my time – sharpened the axe, polished the block, and waited for Coucillor Pam Palmer to grace us with her electronic presence…

My idea was very simple – as soon as she started Tweeting, I would pressure her to answer, or at the very least comment on, the questions that a number of us #DaftArrest campaigners would like answered…

So, on with the first question…

@PamPalmerCCC How does the Chief Exec get to decide that a no confidence vote in the leader will not be considered> Is this democratic?

Clearly, this is a serious question. Basically, one of the councillors launched a motion of no confidence in the leader of the council, and the Chief Executive, Mark James (who is not an elected member) decided that it would not be considered. This seems to be a recurrent theme with Camarthenshire County Council – the officers seem to run the councillors, as opposed to the traditional view that things might be more accountable if this were to be handled the other way around…

It seems however that the democracy and how it might be applied to a council she sits upon wasn’t a captivating enough topic to hold Councillor Palmer’s attention long enough to grace me with a reply…

Hardly disheartened, I thought we’d perhaps try something a little more clear cut…

@PamPalmerCCC Also, how much discretion does Chief Exec have to make up and enforce rules that aren’t in the standing orders?

This comment stems from the #DaftArrest affair, which I really don’t want to go into in this post – but the point is a valid one. The Chief Exec seems to be able to make up “rules” (or indeed “practices”) off the cuff – so I thought that perhaps an elected  supposed public servant on the Executive Board might be able to clarify the position… No response though.

Ever onward… Maybe the good councillor didn’t appreciate how important some of us take democracy – so I thought I’d give her something to think about…

@PamPalmerCCC Do you support the Libyan people, who finding themselves under unaccountable dictatorship overthrew it by force?

No comment from the good lady councillor.

Well, maybe she’s died, or ran off to join a commune or something… I happened to know however that Jacqui Thompson would be attending a full council meeting that Councillor Palmer would presumably be at, so I thought I should do my bit and have someone look in on her to make sure she was alright…

@caebrwyn Can you check @PamPalmerCCC is ok pls? Nagging suspicion she might had died and noone noticed…

Jacqui promptly reassured me that the councillor appeared live and kicking…

I began to get a little annoyed now – I am clearly being ignored. It can’t simply be that Councillor Palmer is merely overlooking my questions – after all, she is engaging in the festivities of Local Democracy Week – it has to have occurred to her that some of us might engage with her…Maybe I should try the topic on which I had originally crossed swords with the Emporer himself, Chief Exec (and part time Sith Lord I suspect…) Mark James. (I declared myself Jedi in the census, so I have a moral duty to be on the lookout for “Sithy” types…)

@PamPalmerCCC What possible reason is there to deny filming of public meetings. Are scrutiny and awareness a bad thing? #pambot

In what you’ll doubtless feel is becoming a theme here, no reply was forthcoming! Not a single reason… I can only guess that Mr. James had a really bad morning on the day of #DaftArrest then – probably Ewoks shitting on his lawn again or something – and vented a bit. Certainly it seems there was no possible reason which the Council, in Local Democracy Week, felt it might want to discuss with me…

Concerned about the possibility of a last ditch military liberation of the people of Wales when Jacqui finally gets pissed off enough to think “screw it!” and takes County Hall by force, I thought I at least owed it to the councillor to highlight the danger…

@PamPalmerCCC also, do you agree that by not engaging authorities actually welcome armed rebellion?

Councillor Palmer didn’t reply. I have to presume she had just nipped out to Tesco or something to get some butterfly cakes with which to greet the triumphant rebel council… Get the doyles out – bit of a spread…

It occurred to me that when General Jacqui advanced upon County Hall, she was probably going to expect a little direct support from her trusted lieutenants… One of the ways people often fall down in their dealings with the council is by some initial act of inconsideration that draws them to the attention of their rulers – so I thought I had better check the parking situation…

@PamPalmerCCC If I liberate Carmarthenshire, where’s best place in your carpark to leave an armoured personnel carrier?

Rather characteristically, Councillor Palmer didn’t crack. Really, I think we should put this girl in the intelligence services – she’s truly wasting her talents in local government…

One of my colleagues at work invited me to “Think of the children…”. A good point :

@PamPalmerCCC Do you have a nice sturdy wall we can line you all up against come the revolution? Preferably out of sight of local schools…

Still having not heard from the good lady, I issued what will probably be my parting shot to her…

@PamPalmerCCC If you refuse to speak with me, pls explain why. Otherwise I feel as though eitherI am ignored from contempt for the public…
@PamPalmerCCC … or because your participation inLocal Democracy Week is a woeful PR sham – paying lipservice to democracy. Which is it?

Astonishingly, no reply…

Time to get serious!

Many of you, particularly those of you in the employ of the Council, have probably read the above and decided that I’m a self righteous annoying little prick who is dicking around making a mockery of the council for laughs. To some extent, you’re right – I am…

But there’s a very serious point underlying all of this. It’s come to our attention that Councillor Palmer has to use headphones in council meetings when listening to Welsh speakers – which rather suggests that she doesn’t herself speak the language. Since “her” Tweets have been submitted in both languages (no, she hasn’t answered anyone else’s questions either – don’t be silly…), it seems reasonable to conclude that these tweets are actually being made in the Councillor’s name by members of the Council’s staff. It follows from this that seeing as staff are being used to run the @PamPalmerCCC account, ie they are doing it professionally, our questions are not merely being missed – they are being deliberately ignored! These are serious questions that go right to heart of the fundamental purpose of the council…

I may have made a mockery of the Council, but the Council themselves are making a mockery of democracy – and I’m quite comfortable with where the lesser of the two evils lies. It’s time to take the Council back from the officers and actually have the opinions of members heard – literally – for a change.

It is vital that the local press, and the local people, put this council under FAR more scrutiny. Elected representatives would seem to be surplus to requirements now in Carmarthenshire , and that makes me very nervous…

Stay classy, folks…

If anyone asks I’ll deny it…

… but I am about to defend Nadine Dorries. This is not part of some cunning scheme to killer her off from shock, but really just a simple appeal to the rest of her detractors to “stay classy”.

It’s been reported in the papers that her relationship with her lover, John Butler, has come to an end. Readers might remember that her relationship with this man was somewhat controversial when announced, not only because this supposed Christian had allegedly had an adulterous affair, but also because of various comments made my Ms. Dorries surrounding her partner’s wife and alcoholism. I remember at the time being particularly appalled at her use of the guy’s daughters on her blog to try to vindicate her position.

That however was then, and this is now. The relationship has come to an end.

When she started in this relationship, I considered it to be a genuine target, raising as it did questions as to her integrity, and also her commitment to the supposed Christian faith that lies at the heart of so much that she does. However, the breakup of the relationship does not deserve the same attention – there’s no public interest to be served here. It’s tabloid stuff, and the fact that Dorries is the victim of it does not make it any the more palatable.

I’m not about to rejoice in what I am sure must be an extremely trying time for her. Nobody has won, and everyone involved has lost – as is typical of this sort of thing.

I will however continue to be hostile, where appropriate, to her conduct as an MP – because there is a very significant public interest to be considered there. That is where the press should be focussing their attention, and not on Dorries’ bedroom window.

We’re in trouble, folks…

I woke this morning to the news that the Home Secretary, Theresa May, would like us to scrap the Human Rights Act.

Just sit and ponder that one for a moment – SCRAP, HUMAN, RIGHTS.

Now, some of the politically aware amongst you will be thinking “Calm down… She’s going to bring in a Bill of Rights instead… What’s your problem?”. That is, when all is said and done, a good question – and it deserves an answer.

Content

It could be that the new “Bill of Rights” is just as encompassing as the Human Rights Act, and me and my liberal leaning mates are all worrying about nothing. However, you don’t make changes for changes’ sake, so it seems reasonable to presume that Mrs. May has some changes in mind. What are those changes? That’s right – we don’t know, do we? There’s been no attempt to produce a draft Bill of Rights either, has there? This means we are not in a position to evaluate it for ourselves, and instead must “take it on trust” that the government will act responsibly.

Simply put, I don’t. This government, just like the last, panders to the press – which is always a big no-no – but this government’s favourite tabloid is the Daily Mail – and that scares me.

More than anything though, if the government is being evasive, then they are being evasive for a reason.

Timing

I’ve yet to see an assurance that the new Bill of Rights would be in force by the time the Human Rights Act would be removed.

Justification

In the Telegraph Article, Mrs. May’s comments lead me to suspect that her main concerns are that Article 8 (Right to a family life) is getting in the way of deporting foreign criminals. You’ll note of course that she doesn’t seem to want to discuss precisely HOW it’s doing that…

The Moral Case.

If we were to remove Article 8, then what would be the effects of such a move? Well, the criminals involved would be denied a family life with their families. “So what?”, you might say, “They knew what they were doing when they committed the offence…”. In so far as it goes, I have some sympathy with that view – if you want to be able to see your family, live a law abiding life and it won’t be a problem…

However, Human Rights are HUMAN rights, they apply to all people. It is not for the state to just decide to remove them from specific groupings of people, even if (perhaps even especially if) those groupings happen to be unpopular in the public eye. There’s no room for discussion here – either something is a human right, and therefore applicable to all, or it is not.

A secondary, though extremely persuasive, argument is that removing Article 8 would not only have an effect upon the criminals, but also upon their families. Is it right that an eight year old should have her mother / father forcefully taken out of their lives at the behest of the state like this? The child / spouse has done nothing wrong – should we not consider their feelings in this debate to? How do we justify that action, and in the case of terrorists, does this lessen or strenghen the likelihood of that child supporting their parent’s view when themselves grow up?

 

I can hear the legions of Daily Mail commentards making a torch and pitchfork laden beeline for my door as I type this. “You’re a loony lefty liberal…” or similar will be the chant.

That’s fine. Wallow in your ignorance if you must – but I at least a “loony lefty liberal” who stopped for a moment to give the issue some serious thought, which I suspect is a claim that cannot be made of many of you.