Archive for the 'Civil Liberties' Category

Page 3 of 4

Repeal the consent laws

Published on 19 November 2006 in Civil Liberties and Society. 2 Comments Tags: , , , , .

Terry Grange, a chief constable of a Welsh police force has courted controversy by stating the bleeding obvious: that criminalising sex between consenting young people simply because they are on opposites sides of age 16 is ridiculous. [Sex with under-16s ‘grey area’, BBC News]

Some people may well get upset but Mr Grange is absolutely right – unfortunately he does not go far enough. The obvious conclusion to his argument is that the consent laws, in so far as they apply to anyone who has attained the age of puberty, should be repealed. The idea that any arbitrary age should be used as a qualification for being “allowed” to have sex is just inept, and fails to recognise the reality of human nature.

In my view we should not have laws that cannot be enforced. Unenforceable laws make the law appear an ass and so make it harder to enforce other, more reasonable laws. You are on very shaky moral ground when you start to pick and choose which laws to enforce and which to ignore. We are not going to prosecute every 16 year old who has sex with a 15 year old. So this law must go.

There are two key issues, of course, that need to be dealt with. The first is that we need a proper legal definition of paedophilia. I find Mr Grange’s argument that it should be linked to “puberty” to be persuasive but incomplete. I think we also need to protect young people from those who abuse positions of trust, without stigmatising certain professions. However these cases can, and should, be dealt with by targeted legislation. This would have to be a pre-requisite for any repeal of the consent laws.

The second issue is that of marriage. I think we have made marriage far too difficult in society. The apparent demand for civil partnerships for heterosexuals, (often by those who misunderstand the concept of civil partnership to believe it extends marital rights to co-habitees) is testament to that. I believe marriage is an important building block in the fabric of society. If we accept that youngsters will have sex (and they do, I’m told) before attaining the age of 16 why can’t they then be married? People mature at different ages and the law should recognise this.

Yes marriage is “a lot of responsibility” but that’s the whole point. Removing barriers to marriage should re-enforce a culture of marriage in society. Such a society can only be beneficial to those young women who today are left stranded by men who fail to accept the responsibilities that go with their relationships. And I somewhat suspect that, within the security of marriage relationship, teenage pregnancies might actually go down.

URGENT: Another parliamentary vote on extradition and justice

Published on 3 November 2006 in Action Alert and Civil Liberties. 0 Comments Tags: , , .

At the Third Reading of the Police and Justice Bill a fortnight ago there was an opportunity for MPs to overturn aspects of Extradition Act 2003 and the USA-UK Extradition Treaty of the same year. Unfortunately MPs rejected these crucial amendments but the Lords have now sent the amendments back to the Commons. Consequently there will be another vote this coming Monday 6 November 2006.

So, time to act again. If you’ve forgotten why, please see my original post on the Third Reading to remind yourself why USA-UK extradition arrangements compromise justice for British citizens.

Here’s the email alert from the Free Babar Ahmed Campaign:

Dear Supporter,

Re: URGENT – MPs to vote again on Monday 6th November 2006

Thank you for taking out the time to contact your MP for the 24th October 2006 House of Commons’ Vote to change the existing UK-US extradition laws. As you may know, MPs rejected two crucial amendments to the Extradition Treaty when debating the Police and Justice Bill.

During the Commons’ debate on 24th October 2006, the New Labour Government, fearing a rebellion, promised MPs that they would further look into the forum amendments. As a result, 30 Labour MP’s abstained from voting.

However, on Wednesday 1st November 2006, the Bill returned to the House of Lords, who voted in support of the amendments.

The Police and Justice Bill will return to the House of Commons on MONDAY 6TH NOVEMBER 2006. The Government has failed to provide a solution to the forum issue as of yet.

We urgently need your help to contact your MP again by Monday 6th November 2006 12 noon to make sure they support the amendments and do not abstain from voting.

This will only take 10 minutes of your time and may be the last chance we have to challenge the law. If the vote is won, it will directly affect cases like Babar Ahmad, who is on the brink of being shipped to the U.S.

Please follow these steps:

1) Go to www.writetothem.com and find your MP by typing in your postcode. Write an email similar to the paragraph below (NOTE: cut and paste emails may be rejected so change a few words and include your full name and address in the body of the email to show that you are a genuine constituent)

“I am writing to you as your constituent to urge you to vote to support both amendments to the UK-US Extradition Act 2003 (prima facie evidence and forum) when the Police and Justice Bill returns to the Commons on Monday 6th November 2006. Although the vote for these amendments was lost in the House of Commons on 24th October 2006, the House of Lords has voted in support of them. The Government had promised to look into addressing the forum concerns raised by many MPs. However, these proposals are yet to be seen.

I would urge you to please make yourself available to vote on Monday 6th November 2006 to uphold the amendments put forward by the Lords, in particular forum amendments, and to encourage your fellow MPs to do the same. I hope that you will vote for the best interests of the British people you represent.”

2) Follow up the email with a phone call by Monday 6th November 2006, 12 noon.

Ring 020 7219 3000 (House of Commons Switchboard) and ask for your MP’s office.

· Give them your name and address.
· Tell the staff you have sent an email and would like your MP to back both amendments to the Extradition Act 2003 and would like them to cancel any prior engagements to make themselves available to vote on Monday 6th November 2006

Please pass this email on to all your contacts TODAY and circulate on mailing lists and forums so as many MP’s as possible are contacted by the morning of Monday 6th November 2006.

Thank you for your time and efforts

Yours sincerely

Free Babar Ahmad Campaign
2nd November 2006

www.freebabarahmad.com

As with last time, please use your initiative. Don’t simply cut and paste the standard text suggested above. Try to express your views in your own words. MPs are more responsive to genuine requests from their constituents than mass-duplicated mailings.

URGENT: Extradition Vote, Tue 24 October

Published on 18 October 2006 in Action Alert and Civil Liberties. 1 Comment

The Third Reading of the Police and Justice Bill will take place next Tuesday, 24 October in the House of Commons. This occasion will include the opportunity for MPs to vote on two amendments that aim to reduce some of the negative effects of the Extradition Act 2003. Please take a few minutes now to write to your MP to make sure they vote to safeguard our rights to liberty and justice.

A brief reminder of some of the problems with the UK-USA Extradition Treaty 2003:

  • British citizens can be extradited to the USA based on the US authorities simply stating their accusation. There is no requirement for them to produce evidence before a British court.
  • British citizens can be extradited to the USA for alleged crimes that took place anywhere in the world – even in the UK.
  • British citizens can be extradited to the USA for alleged offences against US law even when they took place in a jurisdiction where the alleged activity is legal.
  • The Treaty is asymmetric: American citizens can only be extradited to the UK for alleged offences committed here and the British authorities have to demonstrate ‘probable cause’.
  • Effectively this contracts out our justice system to the USA, giving them extra-territorial reach. It’s also retrospective.
  • A few other safeguards in the legal system are thrown out too…

Babar Ahmed remains in detention, awaiting a judgement on his appeal against extradition to the USA. His extradition case is one of the most high profile under the act and, in his case, the allegations all relate to activity he is alleged to have carried out in the UK.

The Free Babar Ahmed campaign sent out the lobby instructions below. Please act on them. (Although hopefully you could spend a few minutes writing your own letter rather than simply copying and pasting their suggested text – it really will make much more of an impression on your MP.)

Dear Supporter

We now have confirmation that the Commons will be voting on crucial amendments to the UK-US Extradition Treaty 2003 on TUESDAY 24TH OCTOBER 2006.

If the vote is won, this will directly affect cases of several British Citizens facing extradition to the U.S. (including that of Babar Ahmad).

Please follow the steps below and urgently contact your MP by Friday 20th October 2006 4pm to make sure they clear their diaries to attend the vote. MP’s from all parties need to be contacted, ESPECIALLY Labour MP’s.

This will take less than 10 minutes of your time.

STEP 1: Go to www.writetothem.com and paste the paragraph below in the box. You must include your name and postal address:

I am writing to you as your constituent to urge you to vote to support both amendments to the UK-US Extradition Act 2003 (prima facie evidence and forum) when the Police and Justice Bill returns to the Commons on 24th October 2006. I would urge you to please make yourself available to vote on that day to back both amendments and to encourage your fellow MP’s to do the same. I hope that you will vote to give British citizens the same rights as the U.S Government gives to its citzens.

STEP 2: Follow up the email with a phonecall by Friday 20th October.

  • Ring 020 7219 6967 (House of Commons Switchboard) and ask for your MP’s office.
  • Give them your name and address.
  • Tell the staff you have sent an email and would like your MP to back both amendments to the Extradition Act 2003 and would like them to cancel any prior engagements to make themselves available to vote on Tuesday 24th October 2006.

Please pass this email on to all your contacts TODAY and circulate on mailing lists and forums so as many MP’s as possible are contacted before the end of this week.

Thank you for your time and efforts

Yours sincerely

Free Babar Ahmad Campaign

Links: www.notoextradition.co.uk

PS: If you have received this email after Friday 20th October, please still follow the steps above as the vote will take place on Tuesday 24th October 2006

www.freebabarahmad.com

Please also keep any eye on the No To Extradition Campaign and Blog for updates.

UPDATE 18/10/2006: I forgot to mention the Early Day Motion from May, put forward by Boris Johnson MP, which calls on the government to amend the unfair extradition arrangements. Read the list of signatures on EDM 241 (Extradition Act 2003) to see if your MP was a signatory, and if so, remind them to put their vote where they mouth is.

No safeguards against mistakes when evidence is “secret”

Published on 12 October 2006 in Civil Liberties and War on Terror. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , .

This morning Radio 4 reported the worrying news that two, separate sittings of the Special Immigration Appeals Commissions (SIAC) heard cases based on mutually contradictory, secret evidence supplied by MI5. SAIC is the controversial court, which makes decisions on expulsion of foreign nationals, on the grounds of national security, from the UK. It is controversial because hearings and rulings are mostly held in secret. Even the defendants often don’t know the evidence, or even, charges against them – special legal representatives are appointed who are required not to divulge the secret evidence even to the person they are attempting to defend.

Under the secretive arrangements it would normally be impossible for a defendant’s legal representatives to discover such a flaw in the prosecution case. The matter only came to light because, by co-incidence, the same barrister was representing the two men concerned. The judge in the second case was none-too impressed, the BBC reports:

In a ruling produced in May, but only now made public, the judge accepted the mistake was not deliberate.
But Mr Justice Newman went on to say the “administration of justice is put at risk” if such failures occur.

The judge accepted that MI5 had a mistake. Since he’s the only independent person to know the details we have to accept his judgement. What concerns me, however, is what the judge could have said but didn’t (or at least it if he did, it’s been kept secret): In a standard high court case all the necessary information would be in the public domain, acting as a safeguard against such “failures” in the “administration of justice”. What are the safeguards when the court case is held in secret and the defendants never find out what they were actually accused of? None, as far as I can see.

Of course intelligence sources need protecting, but we need to also recognise that intelligence is not scientific. “Intelligence” is usually subjective, often based on hunches and rumours. We rely on our intelligence agents to have sufficient knowledge and experience of their domain to make good judgements about which leads to follow. Yet the nature of the business is such that mistakes and failures, such as Forest Gate, are inevitable. We therefore need safeguards to assure justice. I’m afraid the only safeguard I can think of is the right, enshrined under Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights, to a public hearing.

Incidentally the BBC report gives no details on what actually become of the two defendants, Abu Doha and “MK”. Presumably that’s still secret.