Good point

IanP:

I wonder if Mr Webb [former head of Police IT Organisation] can think back in time, reminisce, and remember his childhood, then growing up as a teenager, the games they played, the stunts he and his chums pulled, the high jinks and tomfoolery.

What kind of person would he think he would be today if those growth years had been taken away and stifled, where virtually everything he did was potentially a criminal act, from playing tag in the playground, hopscotch on the pavement, to accidentally dropping a packet of Smiths crisps while he tried to get the salt out of the blue bag under a camera with speakers, would he have grown up with the same views and enthusiasm for these databases.

[links added, not sure if IanP had these particular articles in mind]

Film: Taking Liberties

This looks interesting:

The shocking truth about the erosion of our fundamental civil liberties by Tony Blair’s government will be exposed this summer in TAKING LIBERTIES, released in UK cinemas by Revolver Entertainment June 8th 2007.

Right to Protest, Right to Freedom of Speech. Right to Privacy. Right not to be detained without charge, Innocent Until Proven Guilty. Prohibition from Torture. TAKING LIBERTIES will reveal how these six central pillars of liberty have been systematically destroyed by New Labour, and the freedoms of the British people stolen from under their noses amidst a climate of fear created by the media and government itself.

TAKING LIBERTIES uncovers the stories the government don’t want you to hear – so ridiculous you will laugh, so ultimately terrifying you will want to take action. Teenage sisters detained for 36 hours for a peaceful protest; an RAF war veteran arrested for wearing an anti-Bush and Blair T-shirt; an innocent man shot in a police raid; and a man held under house arrest for two years, after being found innocent in court. Ordinary law-abiding citizens being punished for exercising their ‘rights’ – rights that have been fought for over centuries, and which seem to have been extinguished in a decade.

Irreverent but revelatory, outrageous but true, TAKING LIBERTIES combines these real stories of liberty loss with never-seen-before footage, cheeky stunts and comment from Mark Thomas, leading politicians, celebrities, human rights organisations, academics and lawyers. Narration from Ashley Jensen (EXTRAS, UGLY BETTY); a pumping soundtrack with tracks by Oasis, Radiohead, Stranglers and Franz Ferdinand; and the presence of Kurt Engfehr, producer of FAHRENHEIT 9/11 and BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE add up to make TAKING LIBERTIES the most explosive and controversial film to hit screens this summer.

Cinemas showing it.

BBC article on it.

Very good!

The BBC:

Tony Blair’s supporters can point to the Human Rights Act as evidence that, whatever the complaints of his critics, he was a true believer in civil liberty.

‘Was’ being the operative word – even if true.

I don’t believe Tony is stupid. I don’t believe he is evil. It seems to me that leaves one thing: he lends little to no weight to civil liberties, especially when it comes to suspected criminals and terrorists – the very people most likely to need them.

He can put on his CV that his Government was responsible for, say, the Human Rights Act, but that’s just something he’s put on his CV. It means little else to him.

Is it a vote-winner? He’ll claim responsibility for it. Is it a problem? Then it’s the wooly liberals and judiciary who are at fault.

In short, Tony wants what is expedient.

One of the things that influenced my opinion can be found in Youssef. Long story but the relevant bit is where our government attempted to obtain certain assurances from the Egyptians (see para 13) in respect of four men we were trying to deport, who were simultaneously challenging their detention with a writ of habeas corpus. The Egyptian government had a poor record of torture in custody.

The Egyptians objected to the assurances by letter, Tony obtained a copy, and with reference to the assurances wrote on it, “This is a bit much. Why do we need all these things?”

Indeed, why should we be assured that, for example, the deportee “shall receive no ill treatment whilst in detention”, or that “they shall receive a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial judiciary”?!

I’m not entirely sure what in particular he objected to or whether it was the whole lot. But I believe the requests reasonable for a government that wants to avoid a successful challenge under Article 3 of Convention, specifically:

1. They shall receive no ill treatment whilst in detention; and
8. That, during any term of imprisonment, arrangements would be agreed for regular (at least monthly) access by British Government officials and independent medical personnel.

There were several communications between the Home Office, the FCO, and Tony’s Secretary – with Tony writing on various letters to the effect of, we were the ones being unreasonable!

The Egyptians wouldn’t budge.

Eventually Tony’s secretary wrote to the FCO:

… the Prime Minister is not content simply to accept that we have no option but to release the four individuals. He believes that we should use whatever assurances the Egyptians are willing to offer, to build a case to initiate the deportation procedure and to take our chance in the courts. If the courts rule that the assurances we have are inadequate, then at least it would be the courts, not the government, who would be responsible for releasing the four from detention.

In other words, no point of principle there, “we simply mustn’t break Article 3″, it’s all about what is expedient, “we want to get rid of these people, we’ll take our chances in the courts, and if we fail they will be the ones to blame”.