Liberties
By way of Pub Philosopher I learn that at last.....there is to be a serious candidate standing against David Davis!
Yesterday Jill Saward formally announced that she will stand in the byelection.
For those of you not familiar with Jill Saward, she was the dignified and brave victim of the horrific Ealing Vicarage Rape in 1986.
Steve at PP recollects that horrific story and has included a link to the story outlining the gratuitous cruelty of the robbers who broke into the Ealing vicarage and the ridiculously lenient sentences handed out by the judge. In point of fact the judge made so light of Jills experience he was hammered by the press and public feeling and it threw a light on the general 'old boys' network legal approach to rape trials.
Regards her on this issue and to summarise c/o PP:
Jill Saward believes that the sacrifice of some civil liberties is necessary if crime is to be fought effectively. She supports the use of CCTV cameras to detect and deter criminals and advocates the extension of the national DNA database which, she argues, has been crucial to securing rape convictions.
So do I. I agree with her statement that David Davis essentially wishes to drive a sledgehammer right through the tools the police the need to catch horrendous criminals in violent and other crime.
And so too does David Aaronvich. Before Mr Davis even emerged on the scene to speak on this issue Aaronovich is on the money in this piece, outlining a slew of examples where the use of DNA evidence in tracing and convicting tricky to catch criminals is proven. He is coincidentally one journalist I do actually respect for speaking out over the last few years alongisde Nick Cohen on the Liberal Left sell out on Islamism.
Happily Rupert Murdoch lost his nerve and pulled MacKenzie's funding. That horrendous foghorn leghorn looked to be a serious blight with his self righteous bluster on this important modern issue.
And The Greens have put up a candidate too. The only mainstream party to do so and I might point out to some hardcore civlibbers and so called 'libertarians' (when it suits) the only party to actually be standing for 'full liberties'!
I have mentioned in previous pretty involved back & forths on the subject that David Davis own cynical record on the detention issues until this year (amongst other liberty issues) makes his Magna Carta argument ring well and truly hollow. And it would appear the Greens have his number. So I assume those who have been so vocal here on individual liberties will now be backing the Greens??
I also believe that in terms of standing up on principle Jill is by far and away the more sincere. I wish her the best of luck. I have never put forward money for a political cause in all my life but i will gladly send Jill money on this issue.
Most important of all I am thrilled that the debate will now finally be brought into sharp focus rather than grandiose statements about the Magna Carta in 2008.
A mature, sensible, balanced and fair debate, presenting ALL the facts surrounding the use of technologies (in so far as CCTV DNA database are concerned) and on the balance we NEED to strike between civil liberties and protection from crime.
Alison
in Crime, britain, Election Politics, Liberty
|
23 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (23)
Yes, the balance we need to strike between civil liberties and protection from crime will come only when we hand out exemplary sentences for criminality- when for instance the death penalty is administered for murder, and 40 years for aggravated rape. When this happens, and is balanced by serious penalties for false accusation, and when every case is pursued vigorously to a just end, there will be little controversy over the limited use of DNA evidence and CCTV cameras. They will be used only rarely, and no "database" of DNA will be required to cover their modest use. When penalties are applied for obstruction of justice, when failing to assist a police enquiry (even while journalising) requires serious time in jail, then the balance of civil liberties should be clear- the truly criminal face a complete absence of them, the well-meaning individual may enjoy all without restriction. The 42 days are not necessary when respect for justice extends to the families and friends of offenders, and when the police have genuine sentencing to back their work up. 42 days (and 28) is just a recipe for arbitrary power, not a solution to deep-seated problems with justice in the UK.
I am glad that at least one serious candidate is standing against Davis (ok - two including the Greenie).
However, a total of 26 candidates are standing, mostly cranks and nutters, so unfortunately the count will resemble a circus.
Alison: If I read you correctly here - you are advocating the surrender of civil liberties because it will make you safer?
You seem to disdain the Magna Carta (that old piece of parchment, again..)and welcome the loss of your civil liberties as some sort of solution to crime.
I think you might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. (& I'm not talking about abortion!)
Its 2008. We have new technologies at our disposal beyond bows and arrows. I welcome a better discussion on striking a balance between civil liberties and protection from crime. Rather than giving victims of crime the finger. Bit like you are prepared to accept debate on innocent losses as acceptable or not in order to protect your second amendment.
God I remember that Ealing Rape Case and the prick of a judge who made a statement so gratuitiously stupid I could have killed him. The Magna Carta is like Henry V111 history, it takes into account what happened then. Now is now and civil liberties have been eroded by a Muslims. We had a bottle of gin and vodka impounded at an airport this year because my husband forgot about the new system of 'no liquids' in your carry on case. Yes trivial, we will survive without them, but it used not to be so. I personally welcome any time a suspected terrorist is held in jail it might just save a life. Welcome to our wonderful new life as seen by a bunch of prehistoric neanderthals who dress their women to look like Darth Vader, and also would rather they died in childbirth rather than be seen by a male doctor. I would vote for a woman like Jill Saward rather than DD who prats on about civil liberties, what civil liberties you cannot make free speech anymore and tell it like it is in UK. In the words of a song "It's Over". wake up and smell the coffee.
Alison posted:
Its 2008. We have new technologies at our disposal beyond bows and arrows.
But the jails are the same and imprisonment at the will of the state without trial is no different than it was in 1215.
Maggie
Your position is basically in favour of unlimited internment without trial. But I think you probably represrent a majority of British opinion - people will always trade liberty for security, until they find that they've been conned, and then it's too late.
If the state gets the right to intern without trial, can you ever see it giving up that right? There will always be some threat on the horizon which will justify its retention.
Patty
Well said at 7.28.
If the state gets the right to intern without trial, can you ever see it giving up that right?
thats the most important part of the whole argument, and is generally the one that is least debated. its not the current government im concerned about. its the governments of the future who may be even more unscrupulous than our current public servants.
ofcourse what we should really be asking ourselves is, if the terror threat is exagerated, then what are these laws for exactly? what does the state need to defend itself against in the coming years? economic collapse? food riots? fuel protests? orgainsed opposition? popular uprising?
one bomb doesnt convince me of anything, sorry.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." B Franklin
That being said, Ed has the right train of thought. I would add that when the courts see nothing wrong with releasing terrorists amongst us what good do all those tools do?
The only true protection from crime is the fear of the punishment.
Excellent last sentence Troll. Once convicted, Genuine justice should be dispensed. Pre-conviction, respect for the principles of a free society should be paramount. The hysterical willingness to abandon those principles should be resisted.
"until they find that they've been conned, and then it's too late.
hahahaha the para frikkin noia is funny. and the actual facts stack wholly againts your pov Peter.
Patty is a hypocrite. She's happy for acceptable losses to support her second amendment. Innocent lives lost for her right to bear arms.
Excellent comment Maggie - thank you. There is no sense of the hysterical around Jill.
"The hysterical willingness to abandon those principles should be resisted"
Jill's awesome and i wish her luck with her sensible approach to this necessary debate.
Alison
What specific knowledge or abilities does Jill have with regard to the best way to deal with the threat of terrorism ?
ALison: I don't think my civil rights ( be they my right to arm myself or the right to be unjustly imprisoned) should be sacrificed for "safety."
I think in a time of war enemy combatants can be lawfully detained and should not be allowed civilian rights. So, it would be helpful if we declared war against Islamofascism. (it has, afterall, declared war against us)
Using your logic - any loss is unacceptable for 2nd amendment support - would result in a society where ANY loss is unacceptable for ANY risk - driving, swimming, walking, running etc.
It's just plain silly.
People do stupid things - like run over their kids in the driveway, or leave loaded guns on the top of TV sets - but that doesn't mean people shouldn't have guns or drive.
Live free or die, babe.
Enough of the smothering totalitarian nanny state mentality (in the name of the children, of course.)
Patty,
"I think in a time of war enemy combatants can be lawfully detained and should not be allowed civilian rights."
You mean they should not be allowed their 'god given' rights, don't you?
Do you think that god made a mistake when he gave them rights?
Frank
God-given is simply a term for rights which governments are not entitled to curtail. You are an advocate of the same concept under the term Human Rights.
The weakness in both terms is that they depend on democratic support to mean anything.
The "God-given" right to own a gun or the "human" right to marry within your gender are simply rhetorical devices in what are democratic political debates.
They are legitimate attempts to say to your fellow citizens that whatever their misgivings on the issue they should accept a right because depriving someone of it is an unwarranted constraint on their freedom.
The counter argument is that the damage done to society by allowing such a right entitles the majority rather than the individual to make the decision.
Abortion is the classic case where the "God given" right to life clashes with the "human" right to choose. There is no consensus so the law must decide either through legislation or the courts. What it shows is that the law is going to decide all these issues anyway and our only actual rights are those we agree to give ourselves and each other under the law.
And they necessarily change over time as our understanding changes.
Colm - Does David Davis have some special insights that make him the sole arbiter on this debate or something? She DOES have heaps of experience of police investigations into sexual crime. David Davis wants to put a sledgehammer straight through the very tools the police need to crack down hard on this crime. I doubt DD has even half the experience she does therein and it would be good to rub his nose in some pertinent facts before he insists we throw that all away.
Patty - your logic is bizarre. I believe we are in an unprecedented situation where we should suspend normal rights for suspected terrorists with and under full parliamentary and legal scrutiny. Bit different to you chucking em all in Gitmo and leaving themto fester eh?
My point regards your hypocrisy is that "im alright jack" mentality im accused of applies to your right to bear arms. Your overall "right" to bears arms (says who) means you are saying it is acceptable for losses to happen and for society to accept that in order to protect your so called second amendment rights. When innocent lives get snuffed out by some dickhead loser with an attitude and an uzi its okay because to curb gun right ownership is an affront to everyone elses second amendment rights. You can no more justify or execuse that satisfactorily than i can or civlibbers can with regards to this difficult debate on balancing civil liberties with the need to fight serious crime. In the end we are ALL suggesting there are acceptable losses we are prepared to accept. I am not prepared to accept the loss of life that is associated with the current unprecedented crop of terrorists and couldnt give a rats arse for their rights.
Of the 600+ held to date under terrorism legislation i am still waitining for ONE wrongly accused citizen stripped of his rights and held for 28 days to pipe up about his apparent liberty crushing "ordeal".
Nanny state smchmanny state. You take a good long hard look at the July 7 suspects images on the Tube CCTV that year and think 'oooh nanny state!'. Like hell you did!
"I am not prepared to accept the loss of life that is associated with the current unprecedented crop of terrorists and couldnt give a rats arse for their rights."
And Patty is accused of an "im alright jack" mentality!
It isn't just 'your rights' or 'their rights', under discussion, it is all our rights.
"She DOES have heaps of experience of police investigations into sexual crime."
Yes she does, and it is unfortunate that she had to get that experience in such an unfortunate way. I am sure she had little to complain of in her treatment by the police. They did catch the perpetrators, and her complaint is surely with the judiciary, and the current wording and definitions of such crime.
You can have all the CCTV cameras and DNA databases, but what use are they if the judiciary 'go soft' on the criminals when they are caught?...
CCTV does not provide images of sufficient acuity to be secure evidence against suspects. The 42 days detention is ultimately intended to be used against teh wider public for any 'thought crimes' which NuLab can contrive - insulting the 'prophet', 'racist' remarks etc. The threat from moslem terrorists is no greater than that from the IRA but there is one essential difference: the threat from muslim terrorists is abetted by NuLab which not only ensures that potential terrorists remain here on the loose, but also wishes to bring more in by releasing those detained in Guantanamo. NuLab is deliberately creating the problem in order to use it to get its intended solution.
Alison: "I am not prepared to accept the loss of life that is associated with the current unprecedented crop of terrorists and couldnt give a rats arse for their rights."
If they are enemy combatants - and I believe that they are - then they should be thrown in Gitmo.
If they are not enemy combatants - and terrorism is to be treated as a civil criminal issue as the left in America would like - then terrorists should be accorded their rights of due process like every other citizens.
Second issue: Just because a person uses a car, a plane, a gun to murder and create mayhem doesn't mean law-abiding citizens have no right to use cars, planes, guns.
Your argument that because some maniac uses a gun to kill, or because a child is victim to careless parenting, just doesn't hold up.
You are mixing apples (maniacs, negligence) and oranges (gun rights).
Alison
The reason why I asked that question about Jill Saward is because her experiences which you highlight here and which will probably be mentioned often in the campaign are not relevent to the issue of the 42 day debate. It would be wromg if Jills place on the ballot was used as a form of emotional blackmail, along the lines of How could anyone oppose the victim of a terrible rape.
Ernest's point about her case is spot on. Her case highlighted the issue of appalling sentencing and a disgraceful mis-prioritising by the judge (who as I am sure you are aware gave a longer sentence for the burglary than the rape) , it was not about the tools needed by the police to convict. Using her case to give police greater pre charge powers of detention would be wrong.
Colm,
The church where Ms Sawards father was the vicar is the very church where we got married. It was long before Rev. Sawards time.
I well remember the case, - it was all a bit too 'Clockwork Orange' for comfort, and rattled more than a few of the locals, who never imagined such a barbarity could happen so close to home...
Well this is an odd thread.
Colm and co i think you actually need to read the argument Jill is putting forward first as you all seem confused.
She campaigns for betterment of the criminal justice system aswell. I fail to see why we cannot approach a debate on the balance we need to strike with modern tools available to the police in fighting crime (as a counter point to David Davis who wishes to strip them of those) and improve trials, sentencing and the CJS.
Colm, her argument is extremely pertinent to the debate. She is NOT using her own terrible case re detention at all.
Click on the links.
Patty: You are effectively saying your liberties trump others liberties and that your safety is paramount above others safety. In other words as i said before your argument is no more or less solid or worthy.
There is no apples and oranges mix to this debate. This is about who has the greater claim to rights and liberties and since NONE has the greater claim HOW do we balance it all out.
Like it or not it has nothing to do with nanny state and everything to do with both new technologies available to the police and in the case of detention an unprecedented situation where people have as much a right to protection from terrorism on the 'off chance' as you have to your gun on the 'off chance'.
I view the current crop of terrorists as combattants and traitors as you know. And since I have yet to hear any of the 600 held to date come out and tell us all how wrong the police were for detaining them when in this day and age they have a slew of organisations who would be only too happy to hear from them - on balance i side with the police. The latter would be my last active defence between terrorism and liberty.