Categorised | General |

Members of Parliament and self-interest

Tomorrow at Prime Ministers Question time, the opposition parties shall seek to raise the issue of the arrest of Damian Green. In particular, they will want to know how much advance notice, if any, government ministers or senior civil servants had and why the police were allowed to search Green’s offices? In doing so, they are expected to cite the fact that leaks are necessary if government is to be held to account, provided the information is not protected by the Official Secrets Act. Further, that members of parliament are entitled to have legal privilege between them and their constituents. All very noble, but it completely misses the point, the Damian Green affair was the result, not the cause.

Instead of looking at self-interest, our elected members of parliament, in government and opposition, must look at the laws they have been passed that have allowed this type of attack on our democratic process. The truth is, the opposition parties have been lead like lambs to the slaughter by this government, who have said, if you don’t support our draconian anti-terror legislation, then we shall publicise the fact that you are soft on crime or security. Like little lambs, instead of holding the government to account, the opposition parties went to the slaughter. In other words, they didn’t do their jobs, it is all very well bleating about holding the government to account now, but what have they been doing for the past 11 years?

What is needed is a complete review of the anti-terror laws that have been introduced under this government. Opposition parties must seek clarity on how these laws are being implemented and used against the original intent when the legislation was ’sold’ to parliament. Because I am certain, that no MP expected anti-terror laws to be used to sequestrate the assets of an otherwise friendly country (Iceland), but that is precisely what happened. The police and security services have demanded and received new laws that allow them powers akin to those of a police state. To date, unlike many police states, they do not torture those arrested, but with 30,000 tasers being order, perhaps that is just a matter of time.

Eleven years ago, the police would not have had the powers that were used to arrest Damian Green. Nor would they have been able to gather telephone intercept evidence without a judges warrant. That is no longer the case.

Damian Green should be grateful that the police did not believe that he was receiving information contained under the Official Secrets Act, because then, theoretically, he could have been detained without charge for up to a month, not 9 hours. That is the problem, the police and security services have been given massive powers over the people of this country, not targeted powers for wrongdoers, but blanket powers that can be used against anyone including MP’s. Whatever this government says, the police are a tool of state, after all, the most senior policeman in the land is not elected, he is appointed by none other than the Home Secretary.
The people of this country have seen a massive erosion of their rights, freedom and liberties over the past 11 years and this event has highlighted this. Even the ‘New Labour’ supporting newspaper The Sun, has finally determined that the state has too much power over the populous.

People that claim we are moving towards a police state are branded as nutters, yet Privacy International were moved to say of the UK ”The worst ranking EU country is the United Kingdom, which again fell into the “black” category along with Russia and Singapore.” And that our “identity scheme is still planned to be the most invasive in the world, highly centralised and biometrics-driven“.

This is what I said a month ago on the issue of government control:

The people of this country have had to endure an increasing level of state interference in their everyday lives, from 4.2m CCTV cameras, to chips in rubbish bins. With proposals that include a massive Big Brother Britain database which would store information on calls, text messages, locations, emails and internet browsing habits. Airport scanners which see though clothes, identity cards which include our most private and intimate details. Our children from the age of 5, will be monitored by the state to include their most private details such as details on their mental health, sexual health or any substance abuse treatment. The list is endless, as is the number of ‘agencies’ that will have access to this information, some 700 as last count!.

I earnestly hope that the opposition parties will take the wider issues into account. In other words, how we got where we are today, how and why the state and their agents have so much power, that people can be detained for a month without charge, have their email, phone calls, text messages and internet browsing habits, routinely captured and stored, their DNA taken and stored, even where no charge has been laid etc, etc. This has all been done in the name of fighting crime or terrorism, but what a price we have had to pay. Yet the terrorist threat has not been lessened and crime is not falling. All that has transpired is the police need less evidence to make a charge and have gained more charges to target the majority with. It is an appalling state of affairs in what has become Big Brother Britain. We need to reverse this situation now and there is no better opportunity than the Damian Green affair to widen the debate. Opposition parties must insist on a public debate on the issue of all the new legislation that has been introduced at the expense of our civil liberties, right to privacy and individual freedom.

4 Comments For This Post

  1. CJ Says:

    Parliament and the Government are not the same thing at all! In the UK, Parliament as a whole and the parliamentary process, clunky and annoying as it may be at times, enshrines our belief in (and our right to) democracy and the Government and the police have attacked it by their current actions. No one will convince me that the Labour Government was not behind the arrest and investigation of Mr. Green and they were using a supposedly independent police force for political purposes. That is totally unacceptable. In my view, that is a real crime!

    In fact, in my opinion, that action amounts to treason - an attempt to subvert, or at least control, the democratic processes of the UK for their own purposes by means that are undemocratic and it is the most serious crime anyone can commit against a democracy. It may not involve bombs, or guns, but in my view, it is just as surely an act of terrorism as any other sort of attack.

  2. British Politics Says:

    I appreciate that parliament and government are different, but the poster does not in my view confuse the issue. There is a wider argument as to police powers that comes about as a result of this arrest. I do appreciate that something that is politically motivated should be investigated given it is an attack on parliament as indeed is the searching of an MP’s private files, but without the laws allowing the police to act as an agent of the government, then it could not have happened at all.

  3. shannon Says:

    14/4/09

    sorry to ask. iam doing some homework for my exam it is a essay.
    i need some info on.
    * in the 1642 civil war why did parliment get annoyed because charles belived about the power of kings ?

  4. Frustrated Voter Says:

    @ Shannon: I hope this helps:

    In 1625 Charles Stuart was King Charles I of England. Charles ruled England by divine right. This means that he and his subjects believed that his right to govern his people, and to make the rules by which they had to live, came from God. He also governed by the ancient constitution, which is a very old set of customs and traditions - an unwritten set of rules about the powers of the king - which King Charles believed he honoured.
    Of course, the King was willing to listen to advice - sometimes from personal advisers and sometimes from parliament - but he believed he had every right to ignore such advice and to make the final decisions about governing his country and its people.

    Parliament in England at this time, we remember, consisted of two ‘Houses’ - a House of Lords (wealthy nobles and churchmen) and a House of Commons (representatives of landowners and merchants). Parliament only came together, or ’sat’, at the king’s request. It did not meet regularly as it does now.

    To run the country, pay his servants and fight his wars, the King needed money. He got the money by taxing his people.

1 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. European Court of Human Rights, issues DNA retention rebuke | Power to the People! UK Politic's Blog, Commentary and Opinions Says:

    [...] you deny us virtually everything, given it is but a short step to a police state. Take the Damian Green affair, the opposition parties never thought that the laws which they allowed this government to pass [...]

Leave a Reply

  • Popular
  • Latest
  • Comments
  • Tags
  • Subscribe
Advertise Here

Other Sites