Nick Clegg’s Dave New World
So this is the important bit in the Deputy Prime Minister’s speech, promising a bright, new, un-authoritarian future, with:
Landmark legislation, from politicians who refused to sit back and do nothing while huge swathes of the population remained helpless against vested interests.
Who stood up for the freedom of the many, not the privilege of the few.
A spirit this government will draw on as we deliver our programme for political reform: a power revolution.
A fundamental resettlement of the relationship between state and citizen that puts you in charge.
Andrew Copson, BHA Chief Executive, said:
‘Much in this new Government statement accords with the BHA’s policies we set out in our own manifestos ahead of the election and with the principles of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. We particularly welcome moves to increase freedom of speech, and a reformed House of Lords which, by being fully elected, would necessarily remove the right of Bishops to sit in our second chamber.’
‘We also look forward to making our case for the repeal and revision of unjust, restrictive and discriminatory laws, such as those which require compulsory worship on our school children – a clear violation of their freedom of conscience – and those which unfairly restrict the right to free speech and protest.’
I think Copson is generally right but there are serious problems here. Clegg’s ideas are laudable, but there are as yet no indications as to how he thinks he’ll implement them – moving children of asylum seekers from one detention centre to another (particularly one with a notorious reputation) is not a remotely adequate solution. Much of the push towards ID cards came from within the civil service itself, and there is still an entrenched authoritarian culture in government agencies which needs urgent tackling; just yesterday the new government took the same stand on control orders as its predecessor.
I don’t just expect a repeal of New Labour’s surveillance state laws, I expect a change in culture to uphold the rule of law and to abide by evidence-based policy making. That means not just accepting the European Court of Human Rights’ ruling on the National DNA Database, but abiding by rulings against denying prisoners the vote and on the legality of Section 44 of the Terrorism Act. I’m worried that now in government Clegg is going to pick and choose what works for him and what doesn’t and not challenge the vested interests, defeat of whom really would make the “most significant programme of empowerment by a British government since the great enfranchisement of the 19th Century” much more than overexcited hyperbole.
The Freedom Bill Can’t Come Soon Enough
The ConDemNation coalition is comprised of numerous contradictions, any of which could ultimately become its undoing. But this isn’t a blog post about the public finances or making up constitutional reforms on the fly, this is about the Freedom Bill, or the Great Repeal Bill, whichever it turns out to be. The government has made it perfectly clear that rolling back the authoritarian abuses of the New Labour years would be one of its priorities, yet two problems have already arisen – one in asylum and immigration, the other with control orders.
Children of asylum seekers continue to be held at the Dungavel detention centre despite a coalition promise to end the practice.
A Pakistani woman, Sehar Shebaz, and her eight-month-old daughter Wanya were detained after reporting to officials in Glasgow on Monday.
A spokesman for the immigration minister Damian Green said the current system must stay in place for now.
He said the Home Office had to consult on a replacement.
I can’t help but wonder whether, because this was a Liberal Democrat policy, there was no plan devised on how to prevent children of ‘failed’ asylum seekers being incarcerated. After all the likelihood was they wouldn’t be in government, yet here we are. I don’t understand to this day why ‘failed’ asylum seekers (and Blair jury rigged the system early last decade to make sure there were a lot more of them) should be incarcerated – I really don’t – and simply not locking any of them up would be the most humane solution. After all ‘failed’ asylum seekers haven’t been convicted of a crime. But seeing as that’s hardly likely to happen under a Tory-led government, we’ll have to wait and see on the replacement Green comes up with.
Pakistanis Abid Naseer and Ahmed Faraz Khan, both 23, who were detained by police as part of Operation Pathway in the north-west of England in April last year, took their cases to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Siac) in London. The commission today upheld their appeals.
However, Channel 4 News has learned that both men will now be subject to control orders, restrictions signed by the home secretary for the purpose of “protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism”.
The Liberal Democrats’ Freedom Bill explicitly repeals the inhuman practice of control orders, with the logical assumption that our courts can handle the challenges of modern terrorism and the presumption that the rule of law is paramount. As the Lib Dems’ website puts it:
We should put our trust in them [courts & criminal justice system] and not rely on something as unfair as labelling people terrorists and subjecting them to a range of draconian punishments without ever charging them or trying them.
And that’s the point here. Where’s the evidence? Where’s the fair trial to prove their guilt? How can we live with a system which declares someone a terrorist in secret, and without the right of reply, and then confines them to house arrest? It may very well be true that both men are indeed terrorists, but I’d much rather live in a society that tried them on the same terms as everyone else; to suggest Islamic terror suspects are somehow different is palpably absurd after all. It’s all well and good that the new government has changed policy on ID cards and other, perhaps easier civil liberties issues to tackle, but it’s already time to put its money where its mouth is on others.
