Chris Huhne and the Rule of Law

Image via Wikipedia

Chris Huhne's resignation today highlights an important fact about British political life that is not always apparent to those of us living within it day in and day out. The law of the land is regarded as paramount, and politicians who breach it or, as in the case of the Energy Secretary, are charged with doing so, are expected to be held to account, regardless of their wealth or status.

This may seem obvious, but it worth reflecting on the fact that this principle - that no-one is above the law - is not universally recognised around the world. The BBC's current series on Putin illustrates that in Russia as in many other countries, politicians can and do literally get away with murder. Indeed, in Medieval Britain, the assumption that the rich should be excluded from harsh treatment under the law was elevated almost to a moral principle. The idea that kings and nobles could be brought to court along with commoners was a hard-fought-for concept. 

I for one am grateful that such a principle won the day, and that we continue to live in a country where it is expected that politicians are not above the law.

 





If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Why 98% of abortions in Britain are now technically illegal.

Christian Medical Comment: Why 98% of abortions in Britain are now technicall...

Whatever your views on abortion, you must read this article by Dr Peter Saunders who makes a (to me) persuasive case that the current law in the UK should be interpreted as showing that 98% of abotions in the UK are in fact in breach of the law.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Filming in Public: Police More Aware than Private Security Firms About Rights

Following guidelines issued last year by the Association of Chief Police Officers, it appears from this video that the police in the UK are more tuned in these days to the rights of the public to film buildings in public space.

Private security guards, however, appear to be ignorant of the law. 

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Abortion: the Case for Informed Consent

Whatever one's views on abortion, the fact that, at present, UK law does not require a woman to receive objective information before committing to the procedure, sets it apart from other European countries which have both lower rates of abortion and informed consent enshrined in law.

Nadine Dorries MP, a hated figure among some sections of the liberal left, makes the case for such informed consent to be enshrined in UK law.

I think her argument makes perfect sense.

Forward to 22:20 to hear the MP make her point in the House of Commons here.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

The BA Strike and Free Labour

I've been trying to get some thoughts together for a day or two about the court ruling that pulled the rug from under the feet of the BA staff who were planning on going on strike this week.

I've not been able to do so, but thankfully former ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray, now of Lancaster University, has done so far more succinctly than I could have.

I agree with every word Mr Murray says on the subject. Seumas Mines has written a longer background piece on the growing trend of courts banning strikes on technicalities. I quote:

"The heavily one-sided nature of the laws under which these cases are brought means it is almost impossible to hold a court-proof ballot... And judges are increasingly introducing tests of "proportionality" and "balance of inconvenience" between workforce, employer and public, which have nothing to do with the original legislation. The rule of thumb is now that if a strike is likely to be effective, and an employer chooses to go to court, it will be outlawed."

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Smoking Outdoors: the Next Ban?

I've observed over the years that trends which take root in California usually arrive in the UK a year or two later.

If that is true, British people may want to take note of a law being passed through the California state senate this week banning smoking on public beaches and state parks. Senator Jenny Oropeza, one of the bill's sponsors, claims that 1/3 of debris on America's breaches comes from cigarettes.

I predict it is a matter of time before similar legislation is proposed in the UK Parliament - probably via the national assemblies in Wales and Scotland first.

Remember where you heard it!

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

2012 Olympic Free Speech Threat

Well done to IOC (that's Index on Censorship, by the way) for this alarming story on the draconian powers that have been passed into law through the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006.

Among the more penicious clauses in the Act are the following:

• dedicated road lanes in London for government ministers, games officials and sponsors
• fines of up to £5,000 for motorists who use these dedicated lanes
• regulation of advertising in and around the Olympic area by the executive (not Parliament)
• restrictions to extend to "non-commercial" advertising and "announcements or notices of any kind"
• advertising to be defined as including the "distribution or provision of documents or articles...the display or projection of words, images, lights or sounds..."
• unlimited fines as punishment for breaches of the above regulations
  
• permission for the police to forcibly enter property to "remove, destroy, conceal or erase" anything deemed inconsistent with the advertising regulations

You get the picture.

Essentially, the Act codifies the legal basis for the executive branch of government to create a sponsor-friendly zone around the Olympic venues (possibly including those outside London) within which citizens may not be permittted to advertise non-sponsor companies.

Of even greater concern, however, is the legal basis for restricting speech of any kind which might be regarded as harmful to the commercial sponsors of the Games. This could include, among other possible actions, protests about employment practices of sponsors, even posters in private house windows expressing views critical of sponsors.

Let's imagine a possible scenario. Imagine you were on your way to the Velodrome to see Britain's finest cycle their way to glory and gold. On your way, you pass a row of houses whose enlightened citizens have decided to let the world know how angry they are about the hundreds of abductions, tortures and kidnappings of trades union officials at Coca Cola bottling plants in Columbia and how these crimes, plus numerous murders of union leaders at Coca Cola factories, are alleged to be the work of paramilitary units with links to managers within Coca Cola in these same factories.

Imagine as you passsed these houses, whose residents had displayed posters highlighting these crimes, how outraged you would be to see police raiding these houses and "removing, destroying or erasing" these posters before your very eyes so that senior managers at Coca Cola would not have their commercial hegemony of the 2012 Olympics challenged.

Wouldn't you think that such actions were:

• un-just: all the force of the law is placed in defence of powerful commercial interests at the expense of the rights of the ordinary citizen
• un-British: we are essentially a people who believe in free speech, unhindered by the agents of the state
• un-Olympic: Olympism is defined in the opening statements of its charter, as a philosophy which seeks to create "a way of life based on the joy of effort, the educational value of good example and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles" and further states that a key goal of Olympism is to promote "a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity."

Of course, it will be argued that in the end the courts will not pass heavy penalties for peaceful protestors who happen to fall foul of this Law.

The fact is that peaceful protestors should not even be brouight before the courts in the first place and should not be required to face the intimidation of arrest, charge and trial just for exercing their ancient right to speak and stick up posters, even if they do offend Coca Cola, Visa, General Electric or McDonalds.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

The Dude's Got Style

Wow! What is that I'm suddenly breathing?

Oh yeah, it's the breath of fresh air blowing from America.

I am liking day two:

The man is

• closing Guantanamo
• banning torture
  
• affirming trial by jury and the rule of law
  
• stopping waterboarding
• closing CIA secret prisons

And what's that squeaking noise I can hear?

It must be Dick Cheney riding round in angry circles in his wheelchair.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Somali Pirates - Stop Paying Ransoms

The Director of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime has called on shipping companies and insurance companies to stop paying ransoms to Somali pirates.

Executive Director of UNODC Antonio Maria Costa made the appeal alongside proposals for "ship riders" from neighbouring nations to be placed on warships operating off the horn of Africa. The task of these local law enforcement officers would be to formally arrest pirates apprehended by international navies and escort them to their home country to stand trial.

"Pirates can not be keel-hauled or forced to walk the plank, nor should they be dumped off the Somali coast", said Costa, "they need to be brought to justice". The UNODC Director suggested that countries such as Djibouti, Kenya, Tanzania and Yemen could supply officers who, subject to international agreement, could be placed on board the European, American and Indian naval vessals currently patrolling the waters off Somalia, from where local organised gangs have been attacking and capturing ever larger ships and demanding payments in return for the crew, ship and cargoes.

Similar patterns of regional cooperation have sucessfully reduced piracy in the Straits of Malacca, near Indonesia, and have also been used to apprehended and charge drug traffickers in the Carribean in recent years.

The UN proposal comes on the back of an International Conference on Piracy around Somalia which took place on December 11th in Nasirobi.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Libel, Literature and Censorship

English PEN and Index on Censorship are launching a public inquiry into libel legislation in the UK. The decision reflects increasing concern from both oranisations and others about the extent to which courts are being used to stifle investigative journalism and other forms of legitimate expression.

The inquiry will invite submissions from publishers, writers, editors, journalists, lawyers and other interested parties and will culminate in a major conference next spring.

The United Nations Human Rights Committee has already signaled its concern that English libel law discourages "Critical media reporting on matters of serious public interest, adversely affecting the ability of scholars and journalists to publish their work, including through the phenomenon known as libel tourism”.

One to watch.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Quote of the Day

I will marvel at today's election results... when my innocent clients are freed from Guantanamo. I head there tomorrow.

H. Candace Gorman, human rights lawyer.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

What's All This Talk About Gay Marriage?

I've heard it twice this week - once on TV and once just now on the BBC web site.

In the latter, the reference was made to the former Star Trek George Takei (Sulu) who recently "married" his long term partner Brad Alman at a civil ceremony in Los Angeles.

For the record, could we please agree that the word marriage refers exclusively to the joining of a man and woman in a legal union? It is by definition a heterosexual arrangement, not to be confused with the term civil partnership which can be arranged between people of any gender and sexual orientation.

Don't take my word for it. Boy George (no less) has gone on record several times saying that marriage should be left to straights.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Money Well Spent

£30 million, apparently, is the amount it will cost to destroy Britain's supply of cluster bombs in fulfillment of its treaty obligations agreed earlier this year in Dublin.

The government should be commended for taking this stand and it is hoped it will follow through on not only removing the weapons from use but destroying them as well.

The background to the cluster bomb treaty can be found here.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Kucinich Offers Impeachment Articles Against Bush

It won't go anywhere, of course, but at least someone's tried.










For Rep. Kucinich's views that America went to war in Iraq for oil, click here.





If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Guantanamo and the Unravelling of American Justice

The U.S. military judge who's been presiding over the "trial" of Canadian citizen and Guantanamo Bay inmate Omar Khadr has been removed from his position three weeks after he threatened to halt proceedings if the prosecution failed to release the Canadian's detention records.

Col. Peter Brownback had ordered prosecutors to supply a classified prison log by May 22 to the defence, which alleges that Khadr was abused and coerced into making incriminating statements.

Khadr was captured in Afghanistan when he was 15 years old. Two months after he was transferred to Guantanamo, his chief interrogator in Afghanistan was convicted in the death of an Afghan taxi driver while in custody. Now 21, Khadr faces life in prison for allegedly throwing a grenade that killed a U.S. soldier, Sgt. Christopher Speer, in July 2002.

There's no point in beating round the bush (ha, ha). This abuse of the limited judicial process surrounding the Guantanamo Bay detainees is outrageous. It's the sort of thing we used to criticise in China and the old Soviet Union. Now it's happening in America.

I hate what the warmongers have done to the process of justice.

They'll come for all of us if we let them.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Ultimate Force - The Thin Blue Line is Getting Thicker

Having never previously seen an episode, I stumbled across the final minutes of Ultimate Force on ITV last night and found it a disturbing experience.

The background, for those like me who have not been initiated, is that Red Troop are a fictitious group of the SAS called on, according to ITV, to "face up to any explosive situation to keep Britain protected including hijackers, terrorists, rebel Chechnyan leaders and the deadliest security threats."

So far so good. I don't mind a good bit of anti-terror action. What I found distasteful about last night's episode, however, was the way the heroes were portrayed as sadistic and proud of operating beyond the limits of the law. Examples including the shooting in the head at point blank range of a kidnapper who had previously been disarmed and wounded, and the killing of a second unarmed and wounded criminal by breaking his neck.

OK, I do understand the difference between fiction and reality. I do understand irony and I do appreciate that not everything broadcast on television will necessarily have a direct effect on the lives of ordinary citizens. Nonetheless, the episode of Ultimate Force I saw bothered me.

First, it seemed to glorify violence. The guns used by Red Troop, are powerful, large and, above all, very cool. Of course, the middle-aged, follicly-challenged beer-drinking male who watches the show will, in most cases, be unlikely to follow the example of former EastEnders star Ross Kemp and head downtown to purchase a semi automatic. For a 15-year old petty criminal who is out of control on a London estate, on the other hand, this message seems to be entirely the wrong one to be pumping out, confusing as it does crime, respect, guns, masculinity and killing.

My second concern was the way that law breaking by the authorities was glamorised. The moral seemed to be that when faced with hardened criminals, the law (to borrow a phrase from an Italian friend when describing the function of traffic lights in his home country) merely expresses an opinion. Police, or in this case SAS officers, can do what they need to, because, it is assumed, they know best.

The feel of the final scene, as the Troop headed up the road for a drink, leaving the remains of the dead to be disposed of by the lower ranks of the uniformed officers, was of one gang celebrating the killing of a rival gang. The problem was that the "winning" gang was an arm of the State.


Back in the real world, as the State seeks an ever more powerful role in response to the threat of international terrorism, and as the arming of the police continues to increase accordingly, it strikes me as important for the law-abiding public to avoid being lulled into the idea that extra-legal killings of criminals are a necessary part of modern life. The examples of States where this practice has become institutionalized - notably in parts of Latin America - are a grim reminder of why the blue line between criminals and the public must be keep thin if a democracy is not to become a police state by default.

If last night's episode was representative, the writers of Ultimate Force seem content to portray a world where the thin line is getting thicker.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Europe Considers Outlawing Pre-Crime Troublemakers

Discussions are currently taking place between the interior ministers of Europe to restrict the movements of individuals who "pose a potential threat to the maintenance of public law and order" by prohibiting them from attending large political, sporting or cultural events.

The idea has been on the table since at least June 2001 when violent protests took place near the EU Summit in Gothenburg. The EU has now created a working party that is looking into the issue. The proposed Schengen Information System would allow for the exchange of information between member states on the identities and activities of individuals who are regarded as "troublemakers".

As of April 2008, the working party was discussing a German proposal to define such would-be offenders as those

“whom certain facts give reason to believe that they will in future commit significant criminal offences using violence or the threat of violence. A 'significant criminal offence' is one which falls into a category higher than that of petty crime, noticeably disturbs the public peace and is likely to have a considerable effect on the public’s sense of security.”

Thus defined, a "significant criminal offence" could include one that "disturbs the public peace." In theory, such actions could include a sit-down protest, a mass rally, a human blockade or a number of other non-violent forms of direct action.

Individuals potentially identified under these proposals could include those "suspected, accused or convicted of a significant criminal offence."

These are really significant words. If enacted, these policies would mean that an individual would need only be "suspected" of a significant criminal offence in order to be restrained from attending a rally or demonstration in another European country.

The German proposal goes on to define significant criminal offences more precisely:

(a) Offences involving use of force against life and limb
(b) coercion
(c) aiding and abetting the escape of a prisoner
(d) material damage to property
(e) serious trespass
(f) breach of the public peace
(g) formation of or participation in an armed group
(h) formation of or support for a criminal or terrorist organisation
(i) robbery
(j) arson
(k) causing an explosion
(l) breach of the laws on weapons
(m) incitement to hatred (insofar as the nature of the act clearly shows that the perpetrator is liable
to be violent)

Commenting on these developments, Statewatch editor Tony Bunyan says

"We can now see a pattern emerging across the EU where people who exercise their democratic right to attend cross border protests are confronted by aggressive para-military policing, surveillance, preventive detention and expulsion. This is a reflection of the EU’s definition of “security” at international events which is now defined as covering both “counter-terrorism” and “public order”.

Don't like the sound of this? Contact your MEP, if you know who they are.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Space Junk Threatens Privvy

A Russian farmer is suing the country's space agency for compensation after he claimed a 10-foot-long chunk of metal from a space rocket fell into his yard, just missing his outdoor toilet.

Boris Urmatov, who is visually handicapped, lives in the village of Kyrlyk with his sister Marina. The village lies under the flight path of rockets launched from the nearby Baikonur space centre and is, according to locals, frequently the location of near-misses from assorted space junk falling from the sky.

Mr Urmatov, a sheep herder, is suing the agency for 1 million rubles (£21,000) after what he describes as "an enormous metal casing" woke him in the night as it landed adjacent to his home: "It nearly crushed the outhouse," claims his sister.

Mr Urmatov is seeking damages for stress suffered as a result of the incident.

Russian paper Izvestia (News) says that the Mr Urmatov has legal precedence for his claim. In 2001, the Russian space agency Roskosmos paid compensation of 10,000 rubles (£212) to a private individual when a piece of space junk fell on his yard as he was outside chopping wood.

For archive (though not very interesting) film of a Russian satellite taking off, please click here.

Source: Reuters









If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.