Reply to THIS thread
Start a NEW Talkback Thread
Talkback Home

Democracy - Francesca (28th Feb 2005 - 08:09:20) As a great believer in democracy, I feel very alarmed by the idea of 'indefinitive detention without trial' which is being considered by the government at the moment. What do other people feel about it?

Re: Democracy - Chris (28th Feb 2005 - 14:30:03) This strategy is mainly being used for prevention of terrorism. For example, an Al-Qeada terror suspect will always be a suspect until he/she is released and then there is the risk of suspect status being transformed into guilty status. Whilst terror is being used as a political weapon by Muslim extremists (in this country and anywhere else) what choice do we have but to keep those suspected of potential perpetration under close scrutiny? The dilema for the authorities is that if that if a suspect is released there is a danger that the promised terror attacks (so far avoided in the UK) will occur. Indefinite incarsaration may seem unfair but is the most effective way of doing this. But then terrorism is also unfair and one could say that it is the reason for this seemingly unfair prevention strategy! There is rarely any smoke without fire and a suspect is a suspect because intelligence advises so.

Re: Democracy - Andy (28th Feb 2005 - 14:35:31) If these people are dangerous they should either be prosecuted and tried under existing laws or deported to their native country. The argument about them being persecuted in their own country is rubbish. If they are really terrorists then we should not concern ourselves about how they are to be treated when they are returned, just as they would not be concerned about the result of their intended terrorism in our country. Live by the Sword, Die by the Sword!

Re: Democracy - Mike Grimes (1st Mar 2005 - 01:26:32) I totally agree with Andy's sentiments except that the whole thing has been designed by the government as a pre-election stunt to exploit the populist 'safety over freedom' viewpoint against a more natural standpoint of freedom from over government. This government has introduced over 1000 new crimes most of which were previously an offence under a different heading. Take 'using a mobile phone whilst driving' - driving without due care and attention has always been an offence, although driving with two arguing children in the back seat has never been a specific offence it is (in my experience) a darn sight more distracting than any mobile telephone call. The point is that each one of those 'new' crimes has got them a 'we're doing something' headline in the populist press. Trouble is, they're not catching more people committing the new (or old) crimes. If this government really believed in incarceration without trial and the 'war against terror' it might have retained internment in Northern Ireland and continue to incarcerate those convicted of terrorist acts. But maybe a temporary peace was a political expedient here also. Sorry Enieda, hope you are not feeling too much older.

Re: Democracy - Francesca (1st Mar 2005 - 17:20:11) No Mike, I'm feeling remarkably young and very British and I actually agree with what you're saying!! but who told you??

Re: Democracy - Les (2nd Mar 2005 - 12:09:40) This is a heavy debate! And I agree with Andy, Chris & Steve. If these people are suspected of doing anything that would cause harm in the UK or elsewhere, they should be jumped on and locked up until they can prove that they are not a threat – I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is people who have no connection with the “detainee” who try to “pick up the banner on their behalf. We must keep this county and all the its decent people, not matter what religion or colour, as safe as can be, if that means locking-up a few suspects - then so be it, I wont loose any sleep over it – and nether will most of the country.

Re: Democracy - Mike Grimes (2nd Mar 2005 - 23:17:33) Les, Yes it is a heavy debate - so isn't it a pity that parliament are being denied the opportunity to debate it (and the many amendments) properly in an effort to railroad it through before the old act expires (and before a possible election).

Re: Democracy - Alex Cameron (4th Mar 2005 - 17:48:08) I think one of the points missing the discussion is that of the wider context in which these individual infringements of our liberties are taking place. And by the way, that's exactly what they are - infringements of hard-won liberties that many sacrificed their lives for over hundreds of years. As one MP put it, the police state doesn't just show up at the front door with a little moustache and nazi armband, and it is no liberal silliness - it is a slow, disgusting process that slowly and subtly degrades the freedoms we hold dear over many years. It may not even be threatening from the incumbent government: it could very well be considerably more frightening when used by future governments. The wider context is that we have more CCTV cameras than any other country; very soon the construction and aggregation of data from multiple computer databases (transport, consumer buying habits, property ownership, governmental entitlements) will allow automated profiling and restriction of personal behaviour with ease; politicians are assuming more power every day to deal with the perpetual 'war' against terrorism, with less and less direct accountability (RIPA, Civil contingencies, house arrest & internment); the judicial system is slowly being undermined by so-called legal 'necessities' specified by government (assumption of innocence, burden of proof/habeas corpus, jury-less trials), and ultimately our culture is being 'sterilised' by chronic 'safety-first' messages that discourage individual resiliency through newspeak and deliberately provoke people's deepest fears so that they conform and consume. Control language, control thought. 'Torture' becomes 'human resource interrogation using physical coercion'. 'Genocide' is re-defined while hundreds of thousands perish.

Re: Democracy - Eneida (5th Mar 2005 - 16:44:52) Although I would have liked to hear more views on this subject, I'm glad that most people who posted realise the seriouness of this proposed Bill. Perhaps not so much at present, but as Alex says, the future implications. I see it as the slippery slope to some form of dictatorship, a veritable 1984. The governments excuse that it's necessary for the fight against terrorism is just nonsense, after all this country has been under threat and actually attacked by terrorists for years, without the need for this Bill. Nothing's changed, except the religion of the terrorists!! Having changed from a Brazilian to a British citizen last month, I find it just too ironic that this country (which I always thought of as the best democracy in the world) is now even considering having a law which allows a person (whoever they may be) to 'disappear', without any right of defence or even of knowing what they are being accused of, on the say so of a politician. A case of 'deja vu' indeed!!

Re: Democracy - Chris (6th Mar 2005 - 08:47:59) I am not a subscriber to the view that global terrorism is the major threat that George Bush and Tony Blair say it is but a heightened state of alert, which may be the precursor to this bill, is justified whilst threats of violence are continually delivered by muslim extremists. When Britain was at loggerheads with the IRA, even during the worst 10 year period of violence (the '70s), little if any real threat was apparent on the UK mainland; the theatre of this war was Northern Ireland and Interntment DID result from terrorist activity there. Imprisonment without trial along with physical torture and sensory depravation was practised against "suspects". Forgive me for repeating an oft used Bushism but "a new form of terror HAS emerged", on a far more horrific scale than even the IRA could muster...suicide bombing! Even our erstwhile protaganists (now no longer active) were not into this nor were they into crashing jets into public buildings. The current threat is less predictable, more deadly and more frightening. Therefore the security response is bound to be more reactionary. We would all be moaning if the authorities were doing nothing and the fact that several potential acts of terror have already been thwarted is testomony to the need for this greater vigilence in national security. Whatever one believes about the sanity of joining up with the Bush administration in going to war with Iraq, Britain has created another new terrorist threat for itself and, unless we all leave the country for safer pastures, we best believe that any extra security measures are in the interest of all law-abiding citizens.

Re: Democracy - Alex Cameron (8th Mar 2005 - 15:58:34) I don't think there are many people who would deny that we are facing a new breed of threat. My concern is the arbitary labelling of supposed "terrorists" - by the current usage, it can be widened to apply to almost anyone. Everyone is suddenly a terrorist - file-sharing funds terrorism apparently. Dissent feeds terrorism. Terrorism is the new communism - the great evil used to let the overlords get away with what they want by scaring the masses silly. Its yet another convenient perpetual "war" that has ben with us in one form or another for thousands of years, doesn't look like it will end any time soon, and can be heaped on top of the war against the "red menace", the "war on drugs" and god knows what else that could be politically expedient. People tend to forget that the state of Israel was created in the midst of terrorism against Britain, and its first prime minister was one fo the main protagonist; Arafat was the former leader of the PLO; the US, along with many other governments, has been accused of state terrorism. That old phrase keeps coming back to me when i think about it - "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". Not that i want to say the obvous that opinions are subjective, but more than ever it is important for us to gith for balance. There is a part of this that applies inversely - everyone who does their duty is a "hero". I've always seen "true" heroism as a form of practised altruism, where the proponent receives no extrinsic reward for their actions, or is rewarded posthumously. Now everyone from those who had good intentions to those who died in the line of duty is a hero. Doesn't no-one become one if everyone is one? As long as it gives Hollywood something to sell, and it plays well on the world media stage at news time...

Re: Democracy - Eneida (8th Mar 2005 - 17:55:37) I would like to point out that a phrase used by Chris regarding the IRA conflict "little if any real threat was apparent on the UK mainland" is simply not true. People were generally quite nervous to go into crowded city centres around that time and with good reason. There were several bombings including The Hilton Hotel, Harrods and the Guildford pubs to mention but 3 I particularly remember. And of course we musn't forget that the Brighton bomb nearly managed to wipe out most of the Tory government including Mrs. Tatcher!!

Re: Democracy - Chris (9th Mar 2005 - 18:02:48) Over a thirty year period of conflict that still counts as "little", bad though it was. My point was that in the main area of conflict, Northern Ireland, there was a reaction...it was called internment.

Reply to THIS thread
Talkback Home