Trials? Who needs them?!
Recently the law lords over here decided that detaining foreign nationals without charge or trial for an indefinite period of time was “unlawful”. HELLO!!! Since when was this news? I hesitate to even begin to describe what was wrong with the idea in the first place, but here goes anyway…
1. They are foreign nationals, and therefore out of diplomatic common sense (not to mention self-preservation) and a basic sense of courtesy, we should NOT be detaining them without the agreement of their home governments (which, one assumes, would require them to be charged so that we can explain why we want to imprison them).
2. We have a structured judicial system within a democracy that acknowledges a person’s right to a fair trial – or come to that, to any trial. As far as I am aware, the British constitution does not provide exceptions to allow for politicians wishing to side-step this procedure.
3. Politicians are not judges. Most of them are not even lawyers. Being elected does not magically invest them with infinite and objective legal knowledge.
4. Since when was it acceptable in this or any other civilised country to hold people without even telling them what they’re charged with?
Having finally got to grips with the concept that this practice may be illegal as well as immoral, our Home Secretary is now trying to persuade the House of Commons that a new law should be passed that allows suspected terrorists to be placed under house arrest – again without trial or charge. The emergency anti-terrorist laws that would allow this were put in place just after 9/11, and being emergency legislation, they are only temporary. With the expiry date fast approaching (March 14, according to the Guardian), they need to get this bill through the House of Commons in two days, hence the Home Secretary’s efforts to convince parliament in particular and the British nation in general that a terrorist attack is imminent.
Am I the only one who thinks that this of all bills should not be rushed? That such a drastic step needs careful consideration, and certainly should not be compressed into just two days of debate? That, most basic of all, any bill that cannot be passed without emergency legislation being in place needs to be thought about very very carefully? And finally, why are these ludicrous proposals even being entertained as ideas, let alone stand a chance of being passed?
What the hell is going on here?! Politicians are just that – people who are "professionally involved in politics (Oxford dictionary definition). They do not have the right to pass judgement on people, and they certainly do not have the right or the capability to bypass the assumption of innocent-until-proven-guilty that is a foundation stone for our legal system. We cannot have one system that applies to the majority of law-breakers, and another that applies to people from ethnic minority groups who (whether justifiably or not) have fallen prey to the innumerable prejudices and stereotypes held by those in power in this country. Our legal system is there to offer some measure of protection to people against these idiots who are so easily persuaded that each and every one of our approximately 1.5 million Muslims are strapping dynamite to their bodies as we speak.
And no, Guantanamo Bay is not an excuse. The more I learn about the GB camp, the more horrified I am that the international community is standing back and allowing the US to run such a facility. With no charges, no trials, and no end in sight for the majority of the detainees, Guantanamo Bay is a prison camp that I would liken, on the evidence available to me, to some of the worst atrocities perpetrated by the Nazi regime in Hitler’s Germany. And unlike the Mayor of London, I do not use such a comparison lightly.
1. They are foreign nationals, and therefore out of diplomatic common sense (not to mention self-preservation) and a basic sense of courtesy, we should NOT be detaining them without the agreement of their home governments (which, one assumes, would require them to be charged so that we can explain why we want to imprison them).
2. We have a structured judicial system within a democracy that acknowledges a person’s right to a fair trial – or come to that, to any trial. As far as I am aware, the British constitution does not provide exceptions to allow for politicians wishing to side-step this procedure.
3. Politicians are not judges. Most of them are not even lawyers. Being elected does not magically invest them with infinite and objective legal knowledge.
4. Since when was it acceptable in this or any other civilised country to hold people without even telling them what they’re charged with?
Having finally got to grips with the concept that this practice may be illegal as well as immoral, our Home Secretary is now trying to persuade the House of Commons that a new law should be passed that allows suspected terrorists to be placed under house arrest – again without trial or charge. The emergency anti-terrorist laws that would allow this were put in place just after 9/11, and being emergency legislation, they are only temporary. With the expiry date fast approaching (March 14, according to the Guardian), they need to get this bill through the House of Commons in two days, hence the Home Secretary’s efforts to convince parliament in particular and the British nation in general that a terrorist attack is imminent.
Am I the only one who thinks that this of all bills should not be rushed? That such a drastic step needs careful consideration, and certainly should not be compressed into just two days of debate? That, most basic of all, any bill that cannot be passed without emergency legislation being in place needs to be thought about very very carefully? And finally, why are these ludicrous proposals even being entertained as ideas, let alone stand a chance of being passed?
What the hell is going on here?! Politicians are just that – people who are "professionally involved in politics (Oxford dictionary definition). They do not have the right to pass judgement on people, and they certainly do not have the right or the capability to bypass the assumption of innocent-until-proven-guilty that is a foundation stone for our legal system. We cannot have one system that applies to the majority of law-breakers, and another that applies to people from ethnic minority groups who (whether justifiably or not) have fallen prey to the innumerable prejudices and stereotypes held by those in power in this country. Our legal system is there to offer some measure of protection to people against these idiots who are so easily persuaded that each and every one of our approximately 1.5 million Muslims are strapping dynamite to their bodies as we speak.
And no, Guantanamo Bay is not an excuse. The more I learn about the GB camp, the more horrified I am that the international community is standing back and allowing the US to run such a facility. With no charges, no trials, and no end in sight for the majority of the detainees, Guantanamo Bay is a prison camp that I would liken, on the evidence available to me, to some of the worst atrocities perpetrated by the Nazi regime in Hitler’s Germany. And unlike the Mayor of London, I do not use such a comparison lightly.
posted by Gonetomars at 10:16 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home