In the pages of the Daily Mail yesterday, anti-choice poster-girl was given a platform to put across her misogynist, reactionary views.
We’re counting on you to help us challenge that.

Ministers have paved the way for further concessions on plans to hold terrorist suspects for up to 42 days without charge in an attempt to avert another rebellion by Labour MPs, reports The Times.

Gordon Brown today vowed to press ahead with plans to extend detention without trial beyond 28 days.

The liberty director has written a comment piece for the Times newspaper on why Gordon Brown needs to do a U-turn on terror

The government’s controversial anti-terror plans were last night roundly attacked by former attorney general Lord Goldsmith QC. “The case has not been made out for that extension and I can’t personally support it,” he said.

The media narrative says that a defeat on 42 days would indicate the PM is losing his grip, but they’ll say that anyway. It doesn’t matter what happens.
Here is a list of MPs who have been listed as wavering or willing to rebel over the 42 days bill. Write a letter of support to them!

Britain’s most senior prosecutor last night questioned whether the government’s controversial proposal to detain terror suspects for up to 42 days without charge was even directed at “a real problem”.

Though defeat looms for the home secretary, Jacqui Smith says she won’t “cave in” to pressure on the 42 days extension.

Ministers don’t need to extend pre-charge detention to 42 days because they already have the power to almost indefinitely hold suspects, a rebel Labour MP told the Guardian today.

It should come as no surprise that, in an effort to push its plans to extend pre-charge detention to 42 days, the home office has started citing the number of terrorist plots in Britain. Playing to the gallery in the News of the World this Sunday, Jacqui Smith said: “There are 2,000 individuals [the intelligence services] are monitoring. There are 200 networks. There are 30 active plots. We can’t wait for an attack to succeed and then rush in new powers. We’ve got to stay ahead.”

The Guardian reports today that the cabinet is split on whether pushing for extending pre-charge detention to 42 days is a good idea or not.

Via Anthony Barnett, I find that the home secretary is preparing to offer “concessions” in an attempt to avoid a rebellion against its plans to extend pre-detention charge for up to 42 days.

Under the proposal, MPs would be allowed to debate a decision to invoke the emergency powers within 10 days of a government decision. At the moment MPs would only be given a say within 30 days, a proposal seen as largely meaningless by critics - suspects could have been charged or released by the time MPs had a chance to scrutinise the need for an extension beyond the current limit of 28 days.

This is so meaningless as to be an insult to our intelligence. Martin Salter, Labour MP for Reading West, who Anthony rightly says is preparing to be a sellout, says we have: “got stuck in a sterile debate on the number of days”. So why not remove any delay of time in which MPs can debate the decision? It is cosmetic surgery and it is being thrown as crumbs to Labour MPs who still have control of their conscience. Feel free to write to Salter by email. As Anthony rightly adds: “There are few things more insufferable than MPs telling us how they are the guardians of our liberty and all the great things about Britain while the executive laughs up its sleeve and voters snort with derision.”

Later this week I’ll be speaking alongside Liberty at an event organised by the Muslim debating group City Circle about how this campaign can be taken forward strategically. All are welcome to attend.

Do you like reading fine words? Here is the Prime Minister on the subject of Iraqi ex-employees of the British Government, speaking in the House of Commons on October 9th, 2007:

I would also like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of our civilian and locally employed staff in Iraq, many of whom have worked in extremely difficult circumstances, exposing themselves and their families to danger. I am pleased therefore to announce today a new policy which more fully recognises the contribution made by our local Iraqi staff, who work for our armed forces and civilian missions in what we know are uniquely difficult circumstances.

Fine words. What about deeds?
(more…)

I’ve put together a full list of Labour MPs who abstained or voted against the government’s last vote to extend pre-charge detention to 90 days. This time round, as I’ve said recently, they’re trying to extend this to 42 days. Thanks to Amnesty International and OurKingdom for providing me the information. We feel these are most likely to be persuaded that voting with the government this time around is also a bad idea.

Each MP’s name is linked with their email address. Please feel free to email them saying something along the lines of: ‘Don’t be convinced by the home secretary if you have a conscience.‘
To paraphrase Tesco, every email counts. We need to let them know that we’re watching.

(more…)

Some people in this country, me included, believe there’s something pretty wrong with ‘democracy’ in the UK. It’s blown a gasket. It’s belching stinking pollution. It rattles and it bangs and threatens to seize up altogether at any moment.

Most people just stand around it, kicking the tyres and exclaiming, ‘nah, it’s alright, it’ll go round the clock another couple of times no bother.’ Jack Straw thinks it just needs another coat of paint and it’ll be sorted.

You get the impression that he knows what’s going on under the bonnet but doesn’t want to admit it to himself let alone those of us risking our lives by riding along in the death trap. It needs rebuilding or trading in, if we’re honest.
(more…)

The government will try and push its Counter Terrorism Bill through parliament in the next few weeks. This bill includes the provision to hold someone in detention, without charging them, for 42 days - a two week increase on the current limit of 28 days. Unsurprisingly, New Labour has been trying to paint this extension of police powers in benign terms. But we should not be fooled. Why? Because:

Despite vague allusions to ‘emergencies,’ the reality of the new proposals is that the Home Secretary can activate these powers at any time. There is no need for a public emergency of the type often drawn upon by government ministers; the ‘nightmare scenario’ of police overwhelmed by multiple terror plots. Indeed, an individual case can be trigger enough. Parliamentary safeguards proposed are anything but. The Home Secretary only has to inform Parliament that she has triggered the 42-day limit. Parliament will only be allowed to a vote up to 30 days later and then only if the government is seeking to renew the powers for another 30 days – by which time suspects could have already been held for six weeks. Further, even if used unlawfully, the decision to trigger the 42-day limit cannot be challenged and the power could not be struck down.

We have to try and oppose this draconian piece of legislation by:
1) Raising awareness that the vote is coming to parliament soon
2) Encouraging people to write to their MPs opposing this bill.
3) Informing of events, protests or publicity stunts on the issue.
4) Generate and share ideas on what we can do.

So far, we have: a Facebook group designed to raise awareness; a Downing St. petition against it; a basic list of public figures opposing it. Clearly, this is not enough.

The problem is that the home secretary has been doing a lot of arm-twisting over the past few weeks and there’s a threat going around to Labour MPs who dare to help the government lose its first big vote. I have a bad feeling this will go through.

If we are serious about opposing this latest attack on our civil liberties, we have to do more. So, here goes:

1) We are going to blog this issue regularly (from now until the vote) along with OurKingdom. Please join our campaign by doing the same!
2) Compass is asking for submissions to a consultation. Add your views (until 15th).
3) I’ll soon publish a list of MPs who opposed the 90 days extention. It’s best we put pressure on them specifically.
4) Ideas or suggestions for a publicity stunt later this month welcome!
5) An event is planned later this month at City Circle. Will let you know more soon.

Give ‘em before Grave-robber Gordon takes ‘em: Become an organ donor.

With the Christmas festivities safely concluded, I’ve decided to take a little time out from some truly excellent Christmas reading - Christopher Hitchens’ “Portable Atheist” is well worth the investment in book tokens - to tackle one of the most risible pieces of hypocritical political sophistry I’ve seen in some considerable time…

…Iain Dale’s ‘campaign‘ for fixed term parliaments.

Like Matthew Sinclair, I’m by no means averse to the idea of fixed parliamentary terms, but unlike Iain and other new found Tory converts to the ’cause’ of constitutional reform I actually understand the workings of the British constitution, in theory and practice, well enough to appreciate that the introduction of even a seemingly simple innovation, like fixed parliamentary terms, would require a significant restructuring of our entire constitutional settlement in order to prove workable, not least in necessitating a far greater and more substantive separation between the executive and legislature than has existed at any time since the English Civil War. (more…)

Before I become blissfully chained to my sumptuous new cooker for at least the next ten days, a quick update on ContactPoint (the “children’s index”) and related “database state” issues. I’ve written here (and here and here) about this forthcoming information sharing e-system and why I - and others - fear it may have the opposite effect to that the government desires

In theory, ContactPoint will enable public sector professionals to better anticipate when children are at risk of harm and to respond in a more coordinated way when intervention is required. In practice, say its critics, such professionals will spend an awful lot of time at computer terminals following false trails of misleading information while the fear of breach of privacy – of up to around 300 people they’ve never met “knowing their business” online - will deter the very children and families most in need of help from seeking or accepting it

In my last piece on this subject for Liberal Conspiracy I reported that ministers might be adjusting their sales pitch for ContactPoint, replacing vaguely shroud-waving references to the Victoria Climbie tragedy with less emotive talk of general practitioner efficiency. However, during her damage limitation exercise over the latest disappearing data embarrassment – those British learner drivers’ details that got lost across the pond – Ruth Kelly directly invoked Climbie when appearing on Newsnight (thank you, ARCH blog) and I heard her on Five Live asserting that the public would rightly be appalled if information wasn’t shared in relation to child protection.

Well, her last point is indisputable taken in isolation: of course relevant child welfare professionals working on the same case need to know what each other are doing. But, whatever the top brass of the Association of Directors of Children’s Services claim, a national database of dubious reliability and questionable security, compulsorily compiled and run by local authorities without parental consent being required seems precisely the wrong way of going about it.

How can we best mobilise opinion against ContactPoint? It seems to me that simply howling “Big Brother” isn’t enough. We need to show that e-government in all its form risks creating greater dangers to individuals and to society than it prevents. ContactPoint is a good example of this, and I urge readers to join the Facebook group I’ve formed to oppose it. Lobby your MP too, and lend your support to Annette Brookes MP, the Liberal Democrats’ spokesperson on children’s issues.

But let’s look at the wider picture as well. Guardian technology correspondent Michael Cross has recently argued for a far more open and political debate about e-government, taking in everything from ID cards to NHS records. He rightly observes that the public has been given no clear idea about the growth of e-government, how best to make it work and what its true implications might be. One of my New Year resolutions will be to encourage that debate in 2008. Maybe it will be one of yours too.

David Miliband is the Minister responsible for Government policy towards its Iraqi ex-employees, including those in fear of their lives.

In a recent webchat on the Number 10 website, Mr Miliband was asked the following question by Justin McKeating: “I would like to ask the Foreign Secretary why the assistance being offered to locally employed staff in Iraq, who are being threatened with reprisals - including torture and death - from local militias, is being rationed according to length of service. Isn’t it perfectly possible for an Iraqi employee who has only been employed for five months to face the same dangers as a colleague who has been employed for twelve months or longer?”

To which he replied “The scheme is open to all existing staff whatever their length of service. For previous staff who no longer work for us, there is a 12 month criteria. I think this gets the balance right. The fortitude of civilian staff alongside military forces has been amazing on the part both of British staff and locally employed staff. The new scheme tries to recognise this.”

Just how good a job of recognising it was noted in The Times yesterday.
(more…)