Poole Borough Council has just admitted using anti-terror laws to spy on a family. Who were these neighbours from hell, you may ask. Did they stand accused of stockpiling nitroglycerine? Hijacking a superjumbo? Receiving illicit shipments of heroin from Poole Harbour at 4am, and donating the proceeds to Hezbollah?
No. They were suspected of lying about their address, to get their three-year-old daughter into a better school.
Now, this may well be a gross overreaction by one individual local authority, and I'm sure the government will try to write it off as the work of one loony council, rather than a fault with the legislation. But there's an important lesson for our MPs: if you want to vote in greater powers to curtail our civil freedoms, just ask yourselves who else might be using those powers. I'm sure MPs who back 42-day detention assume it'll be used under the watchful eye of Labour. But who has a good enough crystal ball to predict the day when a corrupt or even a malevolent government (as opposed to merely a misguided one) will walk into Downing Street?
This case from Dorset brings home an even more scary lesson - it doesn't even need evil people to be in power for this sort of legislation to be abused. It only takes a handful of well-meaning second-grade local politicians with a major common sense deficit.
Showing posts with label terrorism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label terrorism. Show all posts
Friday, 11 April 2008
Sunday, 3 February 2008
MPs and buggers
No, not the race of insectoid aliens intent on wiping out humanity. It's about Labour MP Sadiq Khan, who was apparently bugged by the police when visiting constituent Babar Ahmad in jail. Justice Secretary Jack Straw is now investigating matters. He's described it as "unacceptable" for an MP to be spied on when talking to a constituent - and he's on solid ground, since it's completely illegal for the police to carry out surveillance activities against an MP.
That's not how some of the public see it, though. Reading through the comments on BBC's "Have Your Say" can be a risky business for a liberal, as it has the potential to double your blood pressure within seconds. The opinions on the current fiasco are no different; these are currently the three top-rated comments:
MP's should have the same conditions in life as the people who elect them and be exempted from nothing.
Surely if they're doing nothing wrong they have nothing to fear or does that only apply to the public?
Am I exempt from police bugging? No i'm not, so why should an MP be exempt?
Maybe these goons don't realise it, but it's not the privacy of MPs we're talking about here. It's the privacy of their constituents. As anyone who's ever worked in an MP's office will tell you, much of their work involves looking after people who have fallen through the gaps, or been royally screwed over by the system. Some of it is genuinely heartbreaking. If police are bugging MPs' conversations with their constituents, then they are bugging us, at the most difficult and horrendous times in our lives. This isn't a special law to protect MPs - it's a special law to protect the general public.
It's quite similar to the exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act, which protect MPs' correspondence with their constituents, giving the lie to David Maclean's cynical and dishonest stunt last year.
And then there's this little gem:
Of course they [MPs] should [be bugged] when they are visiting such a person in Jail as Babar Ahmad. Has anybody given a thought to the families and friends of those killed by terrorist activities? No I thought not. All we ever hear these days is Human Rights - what about the rights of those killed and maimed?
Would this be the same Babar Ahmad who has been in jail for the past three years, despite never having been charged with a crime?
Of course I care about the families and friends of terrorist victims; of course I care about those who are killed and maimed. I believe those people deserve justice. But justice means not punishing people unless we can prove them guilty. Babar Ahmad hasn't been called to account in court, and there's been no evidence produced against him: how can you possibly know whether or not he's done something wrong?
People just do not seem to get the concept of what it means to have a right. A right is a fundamental entitlement, granted to every person, under a given legal system. Every time I hear someone bleating about how criminals and terrorists should "forfeit" their rights, I want to shout: No! You are wrong. You are illiterate. If it can be forfeited, then by definition, it isn't a right. It's a privilege.
That's not how some of the public see it, though. Reading through the comments on BBC's "Have Your Say" can be a risky business for a liberal, as it has the potential to double your blood pressure within seconds. The opinions on the current fiasco are no different; these are currently the three top-rated comments:
MP's should have the same conditions in life as the people who elect them and be exempted from nothing.
Surely if they're doing nothing wrong they have nothing to fear or does that only apply to the public?
Am I exempt from police bugging? No i'm not, so why should an MP be exempt?
Maybe these goons don't realise it, but it's not the privacy of MPs we're talking about here. It's the privacy of their constituents. As anyone who's ever worked in an MP's office will tell you, much of their work involves looking after people who have fallen through the gaps, or been royally screwed over by the system. Some of it is genuinely heartbreaking. If police are bugging MPs' conversations with their constituents, then they are bugging us, at the most difficult and horrendous times in our lives. This isn't a special law to protect MPs - it's a special law to protect the general public.
It's quite similar to the exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act, which protect MPs' correspondence with their constituents, giving the lie to David Maclean's cynical and dishonest stunt last year.
And then there's this little gem:
Of course they [MPs] should [be bugged] when they are visiting such a person in Jail as Babar Ahmad. Has anybody given a thought to the families and friends of those killed by terrorist activities? No I thought not. All we ever hear these days is Human Rights - what about the rights of those killed and maimed?
Would this be the same Babar Ahmad who has been in jail for the past three years, despite never having been charged with a crime?
Of course I care about the families and friends of terrorist victims; of course I care about those who are killed and maimed. I believe those people deserve justice. But justice means not punishing people unless we can prove them guilty. Babar Ahmad hasn't been called to account in court, and there's been no evidence produced against him: how can you possibly know whether or not he's done something wrong?
People just do not seem to get the concept of what it means to have a right. A right is a fundamental entitlement, granted to every person, under a given legal system. Every time I hear someone bleating about how criminals and terrorists should "forfeit" their rights, I want to shout: No! You are wrong. You are illiterate. If it can be forfeited, then by definition, it isn't a right. It's a privilege.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
