DMusic.com | for indie musicians and fans | Free MP3 music downloads - Forums: Thoughts For The Day: Brown's detention law "victory". In the UK you can now be detained without charge for 42 days.

Forums > The General Forum: Thoughts For The Day

Brown's detention law "victory". In the UK you can now be detained without charge for 42 days.

SimonWaldram	Date: June 29, 2008 @ 5:24 AM But, hey it beats having to go to work, amiright? Since this Bill passed I have been genuinely surprised at the lack of attention the issue has received in the mainstream media. Perhaps even more worrying – to me at least – is that no one I know or meet seems to think that this is any kind of big deal. The general consensus seems to be: "Well if it's going to stop terrorism, maybe it's not such a bad idea." There is no actual evidence that imprisoning people without charge for 42 days will prevent terrorism, but the government has somehow managed to persuade people otherwise. I find that very disturbing. So in case you've not been following this: On June 11th Parliament voted 315 to 306 in favour of extending the pre-charge detention time limit to 42 days from 28 days. That's 39 days longer than in America. 42 days of being detained without the police even having to explain why they arrested you in the first place. Brown told parliament that: "Our first duty is the protection of national security. We fail in our duty if we do not take preventative measures." So if this is only necessary for terrorists who threaten Britain's national security, what about Rizwaan Sabir - a student at the University of Nottingham who was detained for 6 days and subjected to "psychological torture" after downloading an Al-Queda training manual while researching a PhD on terrorism and radical Islamist groups? Here is a video of him talking about his experience: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2008/jun/11/rizwaan.sabir?gusrc=rss&feed=politics I don't know how many of you already know this, but on January 1st of this year new powers who introduced to enable the police to be arrest anyone for any offence at all, including dropping litter of failing to wear a seat belt. This is why we've had cases like the woman in Hull who was arrested when her young daughter dropped a piece of sausage roll. No really: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-561762/I-dropped-morsel-girls-sausage-roll-litter-police-fined-75.html Clearly that is an ludicrous and hopefully very rare example of police misusing new powers, but it would seem to me that the pieces are now in place for anyone to be arrested and detained if they in any way are seen to be a threat to national security. Think that can't ever possibly include you? Consider this: The Terrorism Act of 2000 "gives the Home Secretary the power to outlaw an organisation (without having to prove a case against it in court) he believes may be concerned in terrorism. It also gives the police powers to search or arrest people without warrant merely on suspicion of being a terrorist, creates various offences where the burden of proof may be on the defendant to prove their innocence and even makes it an offence to wear clothing that makes the authorities suspicious you may be a member or supporter or a proscribed organisation." from: http://www.magnacartaplus.org/bills/terrorism/index.htm Here are some cases of people who have already been detained under the Terrorism Act: Sally Cameron: Arrested and held under the Terrorism Act for trespassing on a cycle path: Walter Wolfgang: Famously arrested under the Terrorism Act for heckling Jack Straw during a Labour party conference. John Catt: An 81 year old man who was stopped under section 44 of the 2000 Terrorism Act for wearing an anti-war T-shirt in Brighton as he walked towards the seafront for an anti-war demonstration outside the Labour conference. Helen John, 68 and Sylvia Boyes, 62: arrested under section 12 of the Terrorism Act after walking 15ft across the sentry line at the United States military base at Menwith Hill in North Yorkshire. Two asylum seekers arrested under the Terrorism Act and quizzed for 44 hours after filming themselves in a park: here's a link to that one: http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/news/wales-news/2008/06/08/cops-swoop-on-iraqi-pair-as-they-film-in-city-park-91466-21039832/ At this point I would like to make it clear that, although I am angry, I am not in any way trying to be a scaremonger. I'm really, really not trying to say that someone who drops a piece of sausage roll is at any time in the future going to be detained without charge for 42 days or 2 days or 1 day. What I am trying to show is a pervasive shift towards a much less free and more state controlled society. If we look at some of those examples again, we can see that people have already been arrested under the Terrorism Act for some extremely minor offences which clearly have nothing to do with terrorism. We also seem to have a shift towards the control and silencing of dissenting voices. If the Home Secretary has the power to outlaw any organisation he or she believes is concerned with terrorism – without having to prove it in court, then this means that that the government decides who and what is "concerned" with terrorism. In future could then then include any organisation which opposes the Government? I am a member of Liberty, which is very critical of the government for the way it is eroding our freedoms and rights. If they oppose the methods which the government is employing to "counteract terrorism" could their stance of a particular issue one day be actually be considered to be sympathetic to terrorism? After all, it's not something the Home Secretary has to prove in court any more - and members like me could be arrested for protesting because, as I wrote above, a person can be arrested for any offense now. What if one of these arrested members has their computer searched and they had just happened to look - out of sheer curiosity - at some kind of anti-western terrorist video? What if this person was quite influential in getting people involved in protesting against the government and it would just happen to benefit them if he was locked up and shut up? I'm just following a line of thought here and examining possible scenarios, but given the laws that are now in place that really does not seem like such a far fetched situation to me. Again, this is only my opinion, but one of the things that worries me about people's reaction to Rizwaan Sabir's ordeal is that it most white people don't seem to be very concerned by it because it happened to one of "them". If a Muslim person is arrested under the Terrorism Act then there always seems to be a general consensus in the media and amongst white people that there must be a good reason. If there's any truth in this - and I feel that there is - then it is sad not just because of the implicit racism but also because it is considered to not be their problem. However, it would appear to me that deep infringements into our civil liberties can only ever be everyones problem. If people on anti-war and anti-government protests have been arrested and detained under the Terrorism Act, then this would appear to show that the definition of "terrorism" is shifting from a person or group which threatens national security to one of a person or group which expresses values and opinions which are in opposition to the aims and goals of those in power. Before the war in Iraq begin I vividly remember that after the demonstrations in London – the largest public demonstration this country has ever seen – John Prescott went on the news and stated very clearly that those people were entitled to march, but it did not matter what public opinion was as they were going to do what they thought was "right" anyway. Now I fear something even worse than being ignored by elected representatives: being treated and punished as an enemy of the state for opposing their actions. I'll leave the last words to David Davis, who quit his post as Shadow Home Secretary soon after the Bill had passed: "What we have is the worst of all worlds: a symbolic assault on liberty which is unnecessary, a change in the law which is counterproductive and a procedure which is unworkable. We do not defend our liberties by sacrificing our liberties." So...what are other people's thoughts on this?
Opossum	Date: June 29, 2008 @ 5:35 AM
Opossum	Date: June 29, 2008 @ 5:38 AM In addition, I'm not exactly a conspiracy-type person (for example, I think the reptilian business is a tad stretching things), but, in all honesty, all my family has seen for the last four or so years (from government agencies and such) is so bizarre, it defies explanation no matter HOW you try to interpret it. Seriously. My only thought is, just more of the same likely coming...
SimonWaldram	Date: June 29, 2008 @ 6:03 AM I'm no conspiracy nut either, I'm just commenting on things as I see them. And yes, I agree. It seems that things are only going to go further and further in these worrying directions.
ShadowMom	Date: June 29, 2008 @ 7:27 AM My meager two cents, which is worth about... oh, forget it, it's not worth calculating these days! "We do not defend our liberties by sacrificing our liberties." Exactly. That's why the fearmongers constantly warn us and keep the hate going. And people will allow it to happen because, "It can't happen to me." -- and I'm sure that's what every one of those people thought just before it happened to them. I certainly don't want anyone hurt in an attack by a lunatic with a bomb strapped to their body; it's also true that I would not want to be arrested on a whim OR on the authority of any one person in a position to do so. Protection of the individual's rights and freedoms should be the government's first concern. Obviously, these days it is not. They are too busy sweeping away the checks and safeguards, and in the name of FEAR, we let them do it. Pity, isn't it? Think of it like paper cuts... one is no big deal, but keep on doing it and it becomes obvious what kind of damage is being done. And the salt in the wounds? Let's call it the price you pay for "safety" -- a euphemism on a world-class scale. You don't need to be a conspiracy nut to see the trend; some just saw it earlier-- like Orwell. It seems to me that every abrogation of a right and freedom is a win for terrorism. The scorecard is getting kind of lopsided at this point. And because this is a serious thread, notice I didn't use one
killoFunk	Date: June 29, 2008 @ 9:53 AM On 29th Jun 2008, ShadowMom said: It seems to me that every abrogation of a right and freedom is a win for terrorism. The scorecard is getting kind of lopsided at this point. Yes!
zedsalt	Date: June 30, 2008 @ 3:33 AM I've done a few short stints in county facilities here in the U.S., and I came away from the experience with ZERO faith in the idea of detention as a deterrent. I hate to say things like that when I don't have a viable alternative to offer, but I really believe that people come out of jail MORE likely to commit WORSE crimes than when they went in. Adding the element of morals and ideals amplifies and exacerbates that tenfold, hundredfold, worse. I'm not saying that everyone wrongly accused of terrorist activity is going to "turn" terrorist after serving time, but...as others have already pointed out here...we ARE pouring on the fuel for terrorist recruitment. How do make things better? I have an idea: let's begin by NOT making things worse.