Liberties, Principles and Politics

In what has been a week of up and downs in the world of politics the head lining issue has been without a doubt the controversial 42 days detention without charge rule, which was passed by the House of Commons with a majority of nine. This move has now seen the resignation of Shadow Home Secretary David Davis.

The new 42 day rule, contained in the Counter-Terrorism Bill that will now been sent to the House of Lords, is an extension of the 28 day rule that was passed in the Terrorism Act 2006 and is the latest step in the wave of anti-terrorism laws causing widespread debate all across the country.

This overhaul of counter-terrorism laws started in 2000 where a basic 48-hour detention, expandable to seven days with the permission of the courts, was introduced. This was then doubled to 14 days in 2003 and then increased once again to 28 days by the Terrorism Act 2006. That four-week limit came after former Prime Minister Tony Blair was defeated in a bid to introduce 90 days with and the revised limit was seen as a fair compromise between the protection of one’s liberty, and the protection of others. The current Prime Minister Gordon Brown initially mentioned extending the limit to 56 days near the beginning of his Premiership but later settled on the 42 day limit which we now see taking steps to becoming legislation.

This raises an obvious question as to why the ever extending detention limit needs yet another increase.

The Prime Minister and Home Secretary Jacqui Smith both claimed there may be occasions when the police needed a lot longer to hold a terrorism suspect before they could bring a charge for a specific crime because of the "scale and complexity" of a threat. A yet there have only been a few situations where the 28 day limit has come near to running out with there being only five cases which have some down to the wire. This would seem to suggest that such an increase as we have seen is be no means necessary regardless of what the powers that be would have us believe.

One does not mean to suggest that I am against the punishment of terrorists or the protection of the ‘innocent’ people that feel their wrath, but this 42 day rule is not about punishing terrorists, it is merely about punishing possible terrorists. The difference may, on first glance, seem small as many would argue that prevention is cheaper than the cure. However, one has to ask who or what is a terrorist? Are they people who threaten lives? Or liberties? If it is the latter and it is the idea of attacking the liberties that make them public enemy number one, would this not bring the government itself into the bracket of terrorist and therefore open to 42 days detention without charge? How would Gordon Brown like his new law then? Maybe it or time this government stopped looking at the law affecting the guilty, but how it affects the innocent. In the idea of detention without charge the possibility of miscarriages of justice increases greatly. Whilst a successful conviction enabled by the detention of the suspect for a large amount of time may be seen as a victory for the government, if not for everyone in this country, what do we do if the detained suspect is in fact innocent? Do we then turn around pat the individual on the back and say ‘Awfully sorry old chap, got the wrong end of the stick. No hard feelings?’ and hope they laugh a little and move on, joking to his friends and family about his little run in with the law down his local pub? Some how I doubt such an error will be greeted with such humour. Here we can see the major injustice of such a law, an injustice which was meant to be avoided with the presumption of innocent until proven guilty.

It is could be said that rebel Labour bank bencher Dianne Abbot, one of the thirty six Labour MP’s to vote against the bill, had it right when she suggested that the move taken by the Cabinet was not so much about improving a faulty law, but a matter of political point scoring with the cabinet eager to show themselves as ‘tough on terror’ with the Conservative party being shown to take a far more softer line when it came to terrorism. This can, in part be backed up by the view taken by Liberal Democrats leader Nick Clegg who took the view that this Bill will never become law. He took the view that the proposed Bill will not pass through the House of Lords, where Labour do not hold a majority, and even if it did there would be an inevitable conflict in the European Court of Human Rights where is could be argued that such a detention without charge was against Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which suggests that as a bare minimum the accused individual should be informed of the charges against them ‘promptly’. Although, this phase is by no means specific, one could quite easily argue that 42 days is anything but prompt. Is it that we see with this Bill Gordon Brown fighting against the ghost of his predecessor, keen to succeed where Blair failed regardless of the cost or long term damage to his reputation? With the economy sinking away from the apparent golden age that was Tony Blair’s Premiership, if only in an economic sense, this Bill could be said to illustrate that Brown is an improvement on Tony Blair by being able to succeed where his precursor had failed.

However, the resignation of David Davis may have given Gordon Brown the smoke cover he needs to survive and recover from this very weak political position. With thirty six rebel MPs the Bill’s success came down to the votes of nine DUP members proving crucial. Amid claims of political bribery in what appears to be a ‘win at all costs’ situation the principled stance taken Mr Davis, MP for Haltemprice and Howden, appears to have taken focus of the desperate Prime Minister and onto himself. Despite DUP ministers saying that they voted on ‘national security grounds’ the general consensus, aired in the House of commons after the vote was heard, was that their votes came at a price to our leader.

And yet, one must look at the move taken by Mr Davis and all but admire it. Although it is fair to say that the move has put the former Tory front bencher’s career at risk in forcing a by-election in his East Yorkshire constituency, given the lack of competition that appears to be putting their hat in the ring the risk seems more calculated. Whilst it is possible that he will lose his position in the shadow cabinet Mr Davis appears to have offered a slap in the face of Gordon Brown whilst also standing a large chance of retaining his seat in the House of Commons. With the Liberal Democrats declining the chance to stand in the election, hosted in a constituency that was a main target for the party during 2005, it looks like the challenge for the seat will come down to Davis and the Labour Party with the main issue, of course, being the 42 day rule. In a move which has been described as a purely ‘personal decision’ by Conservative Party Leader David Cameron, Davis has taken an unprecedented move by putting his principles about the need for the protection of individual liberties before letting a law, which and uncertain future, pass by without notice. Is this a sign of the personal rather than party politics beginning to grasp the political world? With one man attempting to show that anything Tony Blair can do he can do better, and another risking his political future in an attempt to make a ‘stand’ against the erosion of civil liberties. Such a stand will turn what is a by-election in to an opinion poll over the detention extension, with Davis sitting in the Blue corner firmly against such a law, and Labour sitting in the red corner crying yes, where it looks like they will be joined by Sun newspaper editor Cameron McKenzie, a supporter of the 42 day rule. The inclusion of Mr McKenzie as a candidate will only add fuel to what Labour have called a stunt, whilst also splitting any yes votes between them, giving Davis two weak opponents, rather than one strong one, where two right wing candidates will argue for votes whilst agreeing in theory and Mr Davis will appear the only candidate thinking logically over the matter. Surely for the government to win the one topic election they need to fight from a position of strength, a position which that do not possess in national government, never mind in the locality. The inclusion of Mr McKenzie as a candidate will only succeed in making a weak position weaker and merely help Mr Davis and the Conservative party to a huge victory over the government. Such a victory that means more than one seat in parliament, but can be seen as gauging true public opinion away from the opinion polls that Gordon Brown relied on so much in the reasoning for the introduction of the Bill.

With the topic to form the focus of debate though out the run up to the by-election and beyond it seems to say that such a victory for Gordon Brown and the Labour Party is all but concrete, with a defeat in the by-election likely and support for his policies thinning by the day, Gordon Brown may want to enjoy his time in Number 10, whilst painting the walls nice shade of blue..