It’s occurred to me that I don’t really mind which way the vote goes tonight on the bill to decide if terror suspects can be held beyond 28 days without trial. I know we shouldn’t play party politics with the security of the nation, but the greatest effect this bill will have is the immediate effect of showing whether or not Gordon Brown can still force a vote through parliament. The substance of the legislation is simply the context for a political disagreement, since it’s not going to make too much difference to the world anyway.
The thing is, if it is necessary to actually use this power for good in the future, it seems the bill provides so little and requires so many checks that it’s borderline impotent anyway. If the police force has to bear the cost of paying £3000 a day to the detainee, there’s no way they’d ever choose to keep them detained beyond 28 days anyway. If it’s never used, it won’t matter if it passes.
The counter-argument, of course, is that it is symbolic of the encroaching restriction of our liberties. This is true, and crucially it is an argument with just about exactly the same validity as the argument for the legislation. As I see it, it’s a genuine trade-off between two equally desirable outcomes – I want freedom, but I also want security. It’s a trade-off that speaks directly to the fundamentals of democracy, and all that this legislation is doing is defining the terms of that debate.
So, I’m going to need some other measure to help me decide where I come down. I refer to my argument on abortion – if the system in place is not broken, then there is no need to change the law. Add to this my natural opposition to Gordon Brown, his government, and everything that they stand for, and it seems that I’m coming down on the side of the ‘Nays’. I await the vote with baited breath, but personally I expect that the Ayes have it. After all, if every MP followed my reasoning, they’d split along party lines!
I am not conflicted on this matter. I would very much mind if detainment without charge went up to 6 weeks. I am also deeply disturbed that Gordon Brown has chosen this as a quasi-referundum on his leadership (sic).
Why not 500 days, as Shami Chakrabarti asked? What is so special about 42? “I think the problem, to be quite honest with you, is that you’ve never actually known what the question is.” (H2G2)
The government has not made a satisfactory case for the extension and it has boiled down to political machinations. As I’m writing this, the vote is taking place so I’ll hit the submit button as soon as the result comes in.
Diane Abbott played a blinder, in her own speech, as well as her interruption during Keith Vaz’s speech, and body language whilst he was on his feet. She definitely said ‘********’ at one point. I hope it gets replayed on This Week.
Filling in time now. Comments shortened. The Lords will kick it out, so will the EU Courts so it is unlikely to see the light of day.
OK the votes are: Ayes 315 Noes 306
Tizzy
June 11, 2008 at 6:18 pm