David Davies' decision to resign is not a challenge to the Labour Party on the question of 42 days. If he wins or loses it won't make a difference to the Labour Government.
His challenge is to his own party.
Most Tories who voted against 42 days would be happy with the policy had a Tory Government proposed it. Few Tories would want to stand on a manifesto that promised to reverse the law (if it is passed).
What Mr Davies' decision does is to throw down the gauntlet to those in his own opposition rich but policy poor party to say we will reverse this law if elected. It is a clarion call to Tories to make a stand on an important issue, rather than opposing for opposition's sake.
The Tories will, of course, make the stand in order to win the by-election. With no Labour, Lib Dem, UKIP or BNP candidate opposing him the chance that the Eng Dems, or worse, the beauty queens, might give him a run for his money would be unthinkable!
But the main question is will the Tories pick up the DD gauntlet and become a party that proposes rather than just opposes? And if it does will that enhance or harm its electoral chances?
Showing posts with label 42 days. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 42 days. Show all posts
13/06/2008
12/06/2008
Why care?
In his column in Golwg this week Normal Mouth wonders why public opinion seem to support issues that human rights campaigners see as an erosion of our basic liberties.
He highlights the fact that many communities are calling for more CCTV cameras rather than complaining that those that exist are an intrusion.
Opinion polls seem to suggest that the 42 days (and more) proposals of detention without trial are supported by about two thirds of the population.
Many seem to believe that taking DNA samples and identity cards are a good thing if they help police catch more criminals.
Part of the answer, I'm sure, is that we have a high level of trust in the police and the other security forces not to abuse those powers. Which is fair enough, the difference between freedom and oppression is often based on how the authorities use (or abuse) their powers, rather than what powers they actually have.
The second reason (which may be based on the first) is that we don't expect the reductions in human rights to effect us, they will only effect people who have no rights to have rights.
The attitude that I hear on the streets (and promoted in some parts of the media) seems to be:
But before taking this attitude that it doesn't affect me so why should I care, it might be worth reflecting on the words of Pastor Martin Niemöller
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
He highlights the fact that many communities are calling for more CCTV cameras rather than complaining that those that exist are an intrusion.
Opinion polls seem to suggest that the 42 days (and more) proposals of detention without trial are supported by about two thirds of the population.
Many seem to believe that taking DNA samples and identity cards are a good thing if they help police catch more criminals.
Part of the answer, I'm sure, is that we have a high level of trust in the police and the other security forces not to abuse those powers. Which is fair enough, the difference between freedom and oppression is often based on how the authorities use (or abuse) their powers, rather than what powers they actually have.
The second reason (which may be based on the first) is that we don't expect the reductions in human rights to effect us, they will only effect people who have no rights to have rights.
The attitude that I hear on the streets (and promoted in some parts of the media) seems to be:
I won't be locked up for 42 days without trial and who cares if a terrorist is locked up for 42 years, never mind 42 days? Why should we care if a person who wants to bomb, kill and maim loses his human rights? OK some of those locked up might not be charged afterwards. We all know that there is "no smoke without fire", so many of those released will be the ones who have been allowed to get away with it because of our soft laws, rather than the innocent. Even if the odd "innocent" person is locked up they will be Muslims who don't believe in human rights anyway so why should I care?
But before taking this attitude that it doesn't affect me so why should I care, it might be worth reflecting on the words of Pastor Martin Niemöller
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)