Restraining Orders Without Conviction

Yet another fence post: The telegraph calls these ‘restraining orders for violent partners’, yet the article makes it clear that no evidence, just an accusation of violence is needed:

“Judges will now be able to approve an order following any offence and if they are acquitted but the court feels there remains sufficient evidence to require restraint.” (source)

If the court feels there is evidence! Who needs facts when you have emotions?

More cynicism required: confronting labour’s creeping totalitarianism

In discussing Labour’s decade of totalitarian legislation, Adam LeBor draws the following comparison in The Times:

“The phrase Big Brother has entered common parlance. But Orwell’s book was published in 1949 as communist regimes in Eastern Europe cemented their control through “salami tactics”. These were invented by Matyas Rakosi, Hungary’s communist leader from 1948-56. He sliced away freedoms sliver by sliver, until he established one of the most feared dictatorships in Eastern Europe.

(…)

In my more cynical moments I imagine Labour ministers following a similar methodology.

Petition Against Sharia Courts in the UK

Back in September, there were reports about Sharia courts issuing binding verdicts in the UK. There is now a petition on the government’s web site to stop the operation of these ‘courts’. The petition is set to run until the 1 January 2009.

Legalising post-charge questioning

The Times reports that: “The ban on police being able to question suspects after they have been charged would be scrapped in measures announced yesterday to increase the number of people being convicted.” (source) I don’t know much about the rationale for banning post charge questioning but am somewhat puzzled by the reason given to introduce the reforms “to increase the number of people being convicted.” There seems to be an increasingly accepted view of the legal process as a kind of production process with the number of convictions, rather than the administration of justice, as the end product.

Other details do not really mark changes in direction, they are

More Meddling with the Justice System

Labour’s former respect Tsar, Louise Casey, has come up with some more “reform” proposals to deal with the perception of a problem:

“She says people do not believe crime has fallen, and think the law is stacked in favour of offenders’ rights.” (source) What is at issue here are people’s beliefs about crime, not actual crime figures. This kind of emphasis is not surprising among the post modern left: once you accept that facts are mere social constructs, it becomes unimportant how high the incidence of crime really is. Note also the notion of offenders’ rights: this very categorisation takes it as given that people are known to be offenders in advance –quite a different notion

John Major on Civil Liberties

“I don’t believe that sacrifice of due process can be justified. If we are seen to defend our own values in a manner that does violence to them, then we run the risk of losing those values. Even worse, if our own standards fall, it will serve to recruit terrorists more effectively than their own propaganda could ever hope to.”

Read the whole thing here.

A cure for Jihad?

Jacqui Smith’ idea that Jihadis should receive counselling instead of punishment is receiving some well deserved ridicule. Doesn’t it seem odd indeed that advocates of holy war are offered therapy while those criticising the ideology underlying Jihad can expect to be prosecuted for insulting religion?

Yet, what seems crazy to

Fear of Sociology: Freedom of Speech and Anti-Terrorism in Germany

Firebombing a country’s army is usually seen as more than a lack of good manners. A nascent terrorist organization in Germany –the ‘militante gruppe’- has been doing just that and several of its suspected members have now been arrested. Two of these arrests, however, have sparked international protests from colleagues in the UK and the USA as well as Germany itself. Strange as this may seem, it is an event of which readers in the UK should take note.

Due Process R.I.P

With the launch of super ASBOS, Blair’s pet project of abolishing due process now seems complete. There is one detail that has received little attention though:

“America is … considering “more sophisticated” monitoring techniques, including a trial of “radio frequency identification chips” for the mentally ill.”(Source)

If things go the way they usually do, they will have those chips for the mentally ill first, for some criminals next, for all criminals thereafter … and finally for all. And why do we meet this idea for US legislation in an article on British civil liberties erosion? Pure coincidence I presume.

Further ‘progress’ in the erosion of due process

Some time back, the New Labour government has passed a law to confiscate the property of those suspected but not convicted of a crime. This is now to be complemented by ’super ASBOS’, supposedly targeted at crime bosses:

The proposed SCPO would be like an anti-social behaviour order in setting out restrictions on the movements and contacts of an individual. It could even specify how much cash a suspect was allowed to carry.
(Source)

It should be clear what this –and countless similar measures- are beginning to add up to. We will be left with a system which allows government to arbitrarily restrict anything which anyone, not least any politically inconvenient person, can do. Little or no evidence of any wrongdoing will be needed and with an increasingly wide definition of criminal behaviour there will always be some incriminating evidence available.

A consultation paper on new measures for tackling organised crime estimates that there are at least 1,000 gang leaders and their minions who regard themselves as above the law.
(Source)

Considering themselves above the law? If law is understood in the sense of Nomos, by Hayek’s definition, the PM and his government should fall into this category.