"He loved Big Brother now."

posted by k

I'm waiting for the knock on the door.

My largely law-abiding life won't save me. They've invented new laws and then, just in case they've missed something, there are ways of personalising the law – devising special laws to get just one person. And I'm not talking about Brian Haw, who got the honour of a special clause in an act of parliament (which turned out not to work in his case after all). I'm talking about laws which might get me – or you. It wasn't always quite so bad.

Of course, there have been plenty of laws to trap the unwitting or foolish or honest. Don't tell a soldier you think he or she should have a change of career. That breaks the Incitement to Disaffection Act (1934). (I've broken that one a couple of times. I'd rather they arrested me for that because I did it deliberately - I think it's wrong to deprive anyone of freedom of thought and conscience.) And there are bad laws which have been repealed. Section 28, which scared teachers out of saying that Oscar Wilde was gay or that most of Shakespeare's sonnets were written to a fair young man, is no longer on the statute books. I'm pleased about that. But there are all those new, apparently well-meaning laws which seem to be used in unpredicted ways.

Take the law on stalking. One individual stalking another is a nasty, threatening matter. I've known young women in particular – though it's not only young women who are affected – really frightened by phone-calls in the middle of the night, threatening letters, displays of covertly-taken photographs. When victims complain and nothing is done, I'm angry. When victims, who may have been stalked for years, are beaten up and even killed, I start asking, “Why didn't they listen to her? Why don't they do something?” So the government responded. A minister could have pointed out that there were already laws against harassment or proposed a slight adjustment to existing laws. Instead we were offered a brand-new, shiny law which would protect the vulnerable from harm – and even from mild distress.

But it wasn't just used against stalkers. It was one of those all-purpose, catch-all laws which could be used against anybody who talked to or wrote to someone more than once. If I encounter an arms manufacturer on the train – it could happen; making weapons is big business in Britain – and find out about his profession, I might express myself strongly, even enter into an argument with him. And if I see him the next day, I might continue that argument – and he might be annoyed. Under the law, that would count as stalking and I might find myself in jail. If I were handing out leaflets and offered one to the same person twice, that might be considered a crime. It seems to me that if a friend and I had a row in a pub and one of us phoned the other to continue the row, that might be considered stalking.

The law is being framed to prevent awkward behaviour and mild distress – and the government seems quite pleased that it sweeps up political protesters and non-violent dissidents as well. Bu you don't have to break the law to get an ASBO. Anti-social behaviour legislation has been so widely framed that it's possible to construct a special law to limit the freedom of speech, action and movement of one individual who hasn't broken any law. That idea was controversial when it came in but now everyone's used to the idea that if your neighbour annoys you enough, you might be able to stop the annoyance with an ASBO. Sometimes ASBOs are used instead of charging someone with a more conventional crime. ASBOs allow magistrates to impose sentences that they make up: people can be banned from places and forbidden to act in a way that is perfectly legal for anybody else.

ASBOs lack the legal safeguards of conventional criminal laws and injunctions which protect individuals. If you break an ASBO – a law constructed just for you – you can land in jail. It's another convenient tool for dealing with protesters and dissidents.

Freedom of speech is being eroded too. I'm not an absolutist about freedom of speech. I'm not in favour of inciting hatred against anyone. Incitement to violence is dangerous. (I sometimes wonder why politicians are never charged with either offence.) There are many individuals and groups who suffer because of what is said about them – that's important for everyone to remember. Politicians and the people have a responsibility to counter a climate of hate. Silence won't achieve that. Nor will the competitive xenophobia of politicians.

Of course I'm sometimes hurt and offended by people's attitudes and what they say. I'm human. But my first action isn't to ring the police. I can see why an airport chaplain was offended by anti-religious cartoons, clipped from Private Eye, left in the airport chaplaincy – they were probably left there to offend. Leaving them there might have been a silly action but it surely doesn't deserve a criminal record. The church wasn't damaged. God wasn't damaged. It seems particularly ludicrous in a nominally Christian country where – archaically – bishops vote as unelected members of the second chamber of parliament and the Archbishop of Canterbury plays a key role in the coronation of the monarch. And – oh -dear! - I've made tactless and ill-judged jokes at times. Will the police come round to get me?

With any luck, the police won't kill me, though since the death of Juan Charles Menenez and the case of David Mery I've felt a little less confident on the tube. I usually find the police polite, even though I was caught in a kettle once and found my experience rather different from the police's official account.

But what would happen if the police came round and arrested me? According to the the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, the police keep 25% of the goods and money they confiscate and the Crown Prosecution Service keeps a further 25%. The law was meant – so were told – to deal with major criminals and drug traffickers using threats and violence – and the standard of proof of how the money was obtained was changed, so that the “criminal” had to prove a legal right to the money. It sounds great when dealing with international criminals. It's more troubling when the police seize the jewellery – and even the life savings – of prostitutes working together for their own protection. Prostitutes are not .likely to go to court to recover their money, as the law requires. So cash-strapped police forces find that pursuing a particular crime is a nice little earner for the force, so long as the police forget that they are now living on immoral earnings – the usual definition of a pimp.

I could go one. I could go on. There are so many liberties trickling away. I've committed so many offences that might be arrestable. I even took a photo of the House of Commons – with a policeman outside. Governments don't usual restore the liberties they have taken – unless the people insist. And all around me are people who have forgotten the liberties they lost and adjusted oppressive, intrusive laws. I'm adjusting too. This time next year, I may have forgotten what liberty is. What liberties have I forgotten already?

"the ballot in our hand"

posted by k


How do we make our votes count?

The question has been raised in a letter in today's Observer which calls for a referendum on proportional representation. Suddenly a new voting system, which has been resisted by parties in power, seems likely.

There are many kinds of proportional representation. In some voters choose a party and leave it to that party to decide which candidates enter parliament. It seems to me to put too much power in the hands of the party.

The system I prefer, which has the unwieldy name of "single transferable vote in multi-member constituencies" has a key advantage: voters put candidates in order of preference. The voter chooses individuals rather than parties and can choose a selection of candidates on their individual merits. It gives the voter a chance to vote against trends in a party and encourages MPs to advance individual manifestos and engage with voters. MPs elected under this system have the authority to be more than lobby-fodder. While parties are likely to continue, they will be weaker and there's more space for independents. Debates in the House of Commons would be genuine debates and an attempt to change people's minds rather than an opportunity to provide soundbites for the next news broadcast. MPs might even turn up to listen as well as to speak. The disadvantage is that constituencies would be larger: perhaps five times the size of current constituencies but with five MPs. However, constituents are much more likely to find at least one MP that represents their views.

Single transferable vote also requires voters to think more - surely a good idea.

Craig Murray gives evidence today

posted by k

Craig Murray, sacked as British ambassador to Uzbekistan and smeared by New Labour for the offence of publicly opposing British collusion in torture, gives evidence to the Parliamentary Human Rights Committee today (Tuesday 28th April) at 1.45 p.m.

Read more HERE.

Watch Craig Murray's evidence live at the parliamentary website HERE.

This is the first time Craig Murray has been able to give his evidence officially although he first spoke out in 2004.

I hope the press will cover his evidence - it's still important.

"First they came ..."

posted by k

Thomas Cochrane would make a great hero for a historical novel. It's arguable that he already is the hero of several, since he may be the model for Horatio Hornblower and Jack Aubrey.

Somehow I'd never heard of Thomas Cochrane until I read Craig Murray's blogpost about him yesterday. Evidently he's not just an important figure in the naval history of Britain but also part of Britain's frequently forgotten radical past. As Craig Murray points out, Cochrane was a radical MP who believed in one man one vote and the abolition of the "tax of knowledge" which priced newspapers so that they were beyond the budget of working people. In 1815 he was arrested in the Houses of Parliament and the precedent has been cited approvingly by New Labour as the government attempts to justify the treatment of Damien Green, shadow immigration secretary.

Craig Murray rightly points out the irony of New Labour, which has laid claim to radical roots, finding its only precedent in actions taken under Lord Liverpool's government, one of the most oppressive administrations of the 19th century.

I don't think there's much need to spell out what was wrong with the arrest of Damien Green or the search of his office, home, computers and emails. Governments who authorise - even at arm's length - the detention of members of the opposition endanger democracy.

But I wish, in all the fuss about the treatment of Damien Green, there had been more mention of the routine use of dawn raids, house searches and detention without trial in Britain - or of the way people legally in this country are required by law to supply detailed biometric data and to pay hundreds of pounds for this privilege.

Asylum seekers in particular are subject to dawn raids. And foreigners, such as students, who are in the country legally, are expected to pay hundreds of pounds for new, biometric ID cards. It's true they won't be taken to the police station to provide the necessary data. Instead they have to travel to one of six centres and wait in line until someone is free to see them. Failure to possess or update a card will be a criminal offence. This is the beginning of ID cards for all of us.

First they came for the asylum seekers. Then they came for the foreigners. Then they came for an Opposition MP. Where will it end?

"a bloodthirsty and unconstitutional force"

posted by k
(with apologies for double-posting)

Accusations flew. Counter-accusations parodied the voice of authority. It was It was 1839.

Memories of the Peterloo Massacre and authorised brutality were strong. But the Chartists were determined on reform. The ideas came from working-class people and their demands were simple.

The Charter had six points:

1. annual general elections
2. universal manhood suffrage
3. secret ballot
4. abolition of property qualifications of MPs
5. payment of MPs
6. equal electoral districts and redistribution of seats

These demands don't seem very radical today. We don't have annual parliaments but the question of fixed-term parliaments is being discussion again. All other points are taken for granted. In 1839 the Chartists were treated as dangerous revolutionaries.

On 4th July police were brought from London to break up a demonstration in the Birmingham Bull Ring. Placards produced by the Chartist convention described the Metropolitan police as "a bloodthirsty and unconstitutional force." William Lovett, the peaceable secretary of the convention, was later tried with the man who took the placards to the printer. Lovett was sentenced to a year's imprisonment for seditious libel.


The first Chartist petition was three miles long with 11 million signatures (including some forgeries). On 12th July it was presented to parliament by Thomas Atwood MP. Benjamin Disraeli was among the MPs voting to debate the petition. But MPs decided, by a majority of 235 to 46, that they wouldn't consider it. So there was no debate on its provisions before the petition was rejected.

There were always some Chartists in favour of physical force, if moral arguments failed. After the rejection of debate on the petition, a series of risings took place. The Newport Rising on 4th November attempted to free political prisoners from the Newport's Westgate Hotel. About 20 Chartists were killed. Three leaders of the rising were found guilty of high treason and sentenced to be hung, drawn and quartered. The sentences were later commuted to transportation for life.

In this atmosphere of fear and repression the government passed the 1839 Metropolitan Police Act. It's a wide-ranging law, rather like the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act of 2005 - the act which bans everybody except Brian Haw from unlicensed demonstrations, placard-holding and badge-wearing in central London. The 1839 Metropolitan Police Act includes stop and search provisions, laws against "furious driving" (of carts), provisions against causing annoyance by kite-flying or ringing doorbells, a ban on blowing horns and lots of provisions against bad language. It also includes a sessional order to ensure that MPs can reach parliament without being obstructed.

This is the law which the government is using the ban the anti-war demonstration today. I wonder what the police will do about David Howarth MP, who plans to join the protest. Perhaps they'll arrest him for attempting to obstruct himself. This would be a shame because he's due to table a Bill which comes close to the one aim of the Chartists that has not yet been accomplished: fixed-term parliaments.





There are uncomfortable echoes of those repressive days in which Chartists were jailed and sentenced to death. However, it's good to see that I can now find Craig Murray's blog in its familiar form by typing the url www.craigmurray.org.uk . It still doesn't take comments and there are no new posts. But I look forward to reading Craig Murray again.


STOP PRESS: Permission was finally given for the march less than an hour before it was due to begin. The government changed its mind in February 2003 as well. In 2003 they gave a little more notice.

Did I miss something?

posted by k
(with apologies for double posting)

Did I miss something?

I read the newspapers yesterday and found that Gordon Brown (our prime minister - it's hard to get used to the change) was threatening a state of emergency. No-one seemed shocked or surprised. No-one made it the lead story in the papers this morning.

I keep looking at accounts of what was said. I keep hoping I've got this all wrong.

Gordon Brown said that he planned to ask parliament to double the time suspects could be detained without trial. He said there were two main options: either parliament would vote as he said or, whenever he wanted to hold suspects for longer, he would declare a state of emergency which would allow him to detain suspects for a further thirty days.

Presumably Mr Brown is talking about the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. This allows the Prime Minister or other Ministers to make legislation without consulting parliament in certain situations. According to section 19 of the Act, these are:

(a) an event or situation which threatens serious damage to human welfare in the United Kingdom or in a Part or region

(b) an event or situation which threatens serious damage to the environment of the United Kingdom or of a Part or region, or

(c) war, or terrorism, which threatens serious damage to the security of the United Kingdom

Presumably Gordon Brown will claim that section (c) applies. That won't be accurate. Gordon Brown is threatening MPs and peers with a state of emergency should they dare to vote against him. The "emergency" he claims is the failure of parliament to do the bidding of the prime minister. That's not how parliament is supposed to work.

Parliament is supposed to be a democracy. Our elected representatives are supposed to vote on the law.

The Civil Contingencies Act is a very dangerous law. It allows the Prime Minister, acting alone, to amend any Act of Parliament except the Human Rights Act 1998 for the period of the emergency. When the Act was debated, Members of the House of Lords attempted to protect laws that they regarded as fundamental to the British constitution. They were unsuccessful. If the Prime Minister declares a state of emergency he can even suspend the following laws:

Bill of Rights 1689

Act of Settlement 1700

Habeas Corpus Act 1816

Parliament Act 1911 (limiting parliaments to five years)

House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975

After thirty days, he has to ask for parliament's approval.

We have a new prime minister who has warned our elected representatives that if they don't do as he says, he'll stamp his foot and rule without them for a month. If they won't let him lock people up for longer, he'll say it's an emergency and do it anyway.

What else might Mr Brown do in those thirty days of emergency?

What would be left when the emergency was over?

Where are the protests?

"true allegiance"

posted by k

As a Brit, I find it slightly disturbing that children in the United States are expected to pledge allegiance to a gaudy piece of cloth. The pledge began with good intentions (the first version was written by a Christian Socialist). However, the idea of equality was omitted - apparently the text could only be agreed by making concessions to misogynists and racists.

The United States came into being with the Declaration of Independence, setting out the grounds on which a colony had the right to initiate revolution against a tyrannical ruler. It's still worth reading.

British subjects (Britain does not have citizens) can vote for qualified candidates for parliament. But MPs who don't believe in monarchy can't take their seats unless they're prepared to lie. Even the most moderate republican - someone who would do no more than vote for a republic if given the chance - is banned from taking a seat in parliament. Electors are allowed to vote for an honest republican but, should they do so, they will not be represented in parliament.

All new Members of Parliament and Members of the House of Lords are compelled to swear an oath of allegiance to the queen and her heirs.

A country which bars electors from choosing the representatives of their choice is not a democracy.

Gordon Brown has started a debate about constitutional reform.

The country may not be ready to become a republic. It may not be ready to debate the choice between a monarchy and a republic. But surely it's time to allow honest republicans to take their seats in the House of Commons.

There's a new petition on the Downing Street website. The text is simple and straightforward:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to ensure that the Oath taken by Peers and MPs no longer pledges loyalty to the Monarchy.



You can sign the petition by clicking HERE.

"necessity, the tyrant's plea"

posted by k (again, a post taken from elsewhere)

Help! Panic now! This is DANGEROUS!!!!

Home Secretary John Reid - the one who's resigning with Tony Blair - has said he may declare a State of Emergency. This is because three non-dangerous prisoners who have never been convicted (as described here) have gone missing.

It seems a slight over-reaction. But according to the Guardian, which has recently transformed itself into a right-wing anti-libertarian newspaper (as demonstrated by some of its Comment columns), unnamed MPs fear their control orders may are turning them into "a laughing stock". And our leaders don't like being laughed at.

Besides that, John Reid has several complaints. For a start, control orders may be illegal. Of course, that would mean the government is breaking the law and not the escaped prisoners. Reid has been keeping them under house arrest regardless of a High Court ruling against him, in the hope that he can get support from the Court of Appeal or the Law Lords. Apart from control orders, MPs refused to let the Home Secretary imprison people without charge for more than 28 days. The courts and parliament are against Reid and people have started laughing at him. What is he to do?

So far as I can see, Ministers can declare a State of Emergency under the 2004 Civil Contingencies Act if there is a state of war, an environmental disaster, a major act of terrorism or a natural disaster. I wonder which of these categories includes the disagreement of parliament and the courts - not to mention the risk of public laughter.

It all sounds so unlikely. But the risks presented by this legislation have been identified. And it seems quite clear that the government wants to suspend parts of the European Human Rights convention - unless, of course, the judges do exactly as they are told.

Surely Parliament won't let this happen, Surely, if necessary, people will take to the streets and defend democracy and the rule of law. We know what happens when governments take power into their own hands and away from parliament and the courts. Don't we?

"in dark times"

posted by k

So what would you do?

Imagine you come from a country where you thought your life at risk. Perhaps you had been threatened, raped or tortured. You were one of the lucky ones, you thought. You got out. You spent all your money on forged papers that would get you across borders and somehow managed - perhaps in a plane, perhaps in a ship, perhaps in the back of a lorry - to reach another country. It's a democracy which proclaims its commitment to human rights. You probably know at least a few words of the language and have some idea of the customs and the people. But when you arrive, you don't know what to do. You're as frightened and disoriented as anyone arriving in a strange place for the first time. For all the courage that got you so far, you're unsure how to cope in a strange place. The language you thought you knew from films and textbooks is letting you down. People speak fast, use words you don't understand and have a range of unfamiliar accents.

If you don't claim asylum at once, according to the rules and at the right place, you're in big trouble. Did you know that? Do you have any idea what the right place is? And you have to provide valid documents, such as the passport you left behind when you fled - or you have to explain in detail why you haven't got them. The officials are told to be sceptical. How do you persuade them to believe you?

There are leaflets to help - but did you know where to find them?

When you claim asylum, you will be photographed and fingerprinted. You may be sent to a detention centre. This could bring back memories of your bad experiences at home. You may experience terror, flashbacks, anger, fear. If you're lucky, your story will be believed. If you're lucky, you will be given a temporary right to remain. You will be asked to complete a complex, 20-page form including a statement of evidence. You can't do this in your own language unless you add a translation into the language of this new, strange country. And you have to get it right or you'll be sent back. You have ten days in which to complete it. And you need evidence of what happened to you: medical evidence, newspaper reports, testimonies, etc. Nobody told you to bring these with you when you left the country, and you may not be able to find a doctor or lawyer now, in haste.

If you applied for asylum quickly, you may get help with money and accommodation. This is important, as you aren't allowed to work. There's a pdf leaflet which gives advice on the conditions. (If you applied late or if you're disbelieved, you get nothing.)
You may be moved to another town and compelled to stay there. There may be no-one else there who speaks your language. Just as you were getting used to the accents of one place, you encounter new accents. The neighbours may be hostile. Many newspapers tell them that people like you are violent, dishonest scroungers. Expect to encounter suspicion and name-calling. You may be attacked.

If your application is turned down, what will you do? Not all lawyers are allowed to help you and those who will help need to be paid.

Where will you live?
How will you eat?

If you're lucky, there will be a charity to help you. You may find an organisation that is friendly and helpful. Maybe there's a warm room where you can sit and talk and play boardgames. But they don't have much to give. You get a bag of food every week and weekly spending money: £2.50 (£5 a week if you have serious health problems). If you read the appeals, you know that they are running out of money and the amount they give you may be cut.

You can't work. It's against the law.
If you beg, you may be arrested.
And you may be sent back to fear, imsprisonment, torture and death.

Luckily the country's parliament has taken notice. There's a report which talks about your suffering - and worse cases: children imprisoned, a cancer sufferer refused treatment, babies born into squalor. Surely in a democracy this will have an effect.

But the ministry in charge of your case says, "We simply do not think that it is right that those without any right to be in the UK should be given the right to work or access other services."

You hear those words and you know what they mean. That's you - with no rights. No right to food, no right to accommodation, no right to legal help, no right to work, no right to medical treatment. You might think it means no right to live.




For further comments on this subject, please read Jenny Diski.