And so the terror bill is defeated convincingly. My MP actually represented me on this occasion. If you want to know how your MP voted... follow this link:
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4424170.stm?display=1
I could never support a law that would hold any person without charge for 90 days (or as it should correctly be stated... a quarter of a year).
I cannot believe for one minute if the security services have been monitoring a terrorist network for so long... that once having gained warrant for an arrest, they would need that much extra time to gather enough evidence for a conviction.
I believe the law in total would be used for political rather than security reasons. If an innocent man were held that long they would probably lose their job, reputation and any semblance of a normal life... and they would not get compensation because the police could argue they had sufficient reason to hold them that long at the time of suspicion.
I think 28 days is a sensible compromise for now.
I maintain my insistence that the "War on Terror" is as much about laying the groundwork for an authoritarian ideology... as it is about any genuine threat. The political rhetoric is very similar to that of the Cold War.
If people think this is merely about stopping islamic fundamentalists and eliminating their ability to attack the ideology of the "free" world, then I suggest you look again at the whole mandate of the bill. If you think the ball would stop rolling there.... think again, historically this has never been the case. Did Cromwell stop when the parliamentarians had crushed the royalists in England? No, he went on to wage war in Ireland. Did Hitler stop with Poland? Did he restrict his racial and ideological hatred to jews... no.
When extreme power is given over to a select few people with a specific mandate (however noble), it is normally the case that those individuals expand their mandate so as not to relinquish that power when the need for it is estinguished.
For those thinking this law would have been restricted to a certain group... I offer you this quote which is attributed to Martin Niemoller:
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4424170.stm?display=1
I could never support a law that would hold any person without charge for 90 days (or as it should correctly be stated... a quarter of a year).
I cannot believe for one minute if the security services have been monitoring a terrorist network for so long... that once having gained warrant for an arrest, they would need that much extra time to gather enough evidence for a conviction.
I believe the law in total would be used for political rather than security reasons. If an innocent man were held that long they would probably lose their job, reputation and any semblance of a normal life... and they would not get compensation because the police could argue they had sufficient reason to hold them that long at the time of suspicion.
I think 28 days is a sensible compromise for now.
I maintain my insistence that the "War on Terror" is as much about laying the groundwork for an authoritarian ideology... as it is about any genuine threat. The political rhetoric is very similar to that of the Cold War.
If people think this is merely about stopping islamic fundamentalists and eliminating their ability to attack the ideology of the "free" world, then I suggest you look again at the whole mandate of the bill. If you think the ball would stop rolling there.... think again, historically this has never been the case. Did Cromwell stop when the parliamentarians had crushed the royalists in England? No, he went on to wage war in Ireland. Did Hitler stop with Poland? Did he restrict his racial and ideological hatred to jews... no.
When extreme power is given over to a select few people with a specific mandate (however noble), it is normally the case that those individuals expand their mandate so as not to relinquish that power when the need for it is estinguished.
For those thinking this law would have been restricted to a certain group... I offer you this quote which is attributed to Martin Niemoller:
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Love your neighbour as yourself. Do unto others as you would have it done unto you. These are the principles by which the Christian world is called to live by, in relation to the rest of humanity... and we should live by them and if necessary... die by them.
What are people's thoughts on the whole subject?
Love your neighbour as yourself. Do unto others as you would have it done unto you. These are the principles by which the Christian world is called to live by, in relation to the rest of humanity... and we should live by them and if necessary... die by them.
What are people's thoughts on the whole subject?
No comments:
Post a Comment