Reaction to Davis - and will Labour stand?
Well, it seems people are agog, aghast, a-quiver or cock-a-hoop. Opinions are divided over whether this is good or bad for the Tories and good or bad for Labour. Either way, it's electrifying.
Shocked reactions as the news broke at ConservativeHome with opinion divided. Blairwatch is pleased that Davis spoke for an awful lot of us.
Septicisle has a well-written and thoughtful post saying Davis deserves our support.
Matt Wardman applauds Davis for nailing the Tories to civil liberties and drawing support from across the political spectrum in doing so.
Conor Foley has just resigned from the Labour party, over 42 days, and says it is with mixed feelings that he recognises Davis is now the most important symbol of opposition to a fundementally flawed piece of legislation.
The Spectator on the Passion of David Davies.
Iain Dale, who worked as Davis' man for the leadership campaign and was everywhere yesterday, on Davis' walk into the unknown
Unity thinks it a futile gesture and Justin wonders about premature capitulation and Matthew Norman thinks we're world leaders in security blunders
Will Labour stand? No, it looks like the Sun, the only paper to run with the Government's authoritarian line, will run a right tit instead. Well, it is important to stand - or fall for what you believe in. Over the last hundred years, people have died to keep us free. People have died to keep us safe.
If Brown's government are so sure that 42 days and their current anti-terrorism and surveillance policies are designed to keep us safe and free and are willing to whip, harry, bully and buy a vote in the Commons, then why will they not also put it to the people? Let them vote for a Labour candidate backing the Government's tough line on detention, ID cards, CCTV surveillance, curtailed right to protest, rendition, war and all the rest of it?
Do Labour not have the courage of their convictions?
It would be fascinating to see a cross-party alliance forming on this, a democratic liberties party ( which commenters on Liberal Conspiracy are discussing). We shall see where the political storm blows us over the next few weeks...
Shocked reactions as the news broke at ConservativeHome with opinion divided. Blairwatch is pleased that Davis spoke for an awful lot of us.
Septicisle has a well-written and thoughtful post saying Davis deserves our support.
Matt Wardman applauds Davis for nailing the Tories to civil liberties and drawing support from across the political spectrum in doing so.
Conor Foley has just resigned from the Labour party, over 42 days, and says it is with mixed feelings that he recognises Davis is now the most important symbol of opposition to a fundementally flawed piece of legislation.
The Spectator on the Passion of David Davies.
Iain Dale, who worked as Davis' man for the leadership campaign and was everywhere yesterday, on Davis' walk into the unknown
Unity thinks it a futile gesture and Justin wonders about premature capitulation and Matthew Norman thinks we're world leaders in security blunders
Will Labour stand? No, it looks like the Sun, the only paper to run with the Government's authoritarian line, will run a right tit instead. Well, it is important to stand - or fall for what you believe in. Over the last hundred years, people have died to keep us free. People have died to keep us safe.
If Brown's government are so sure that 42 days and their current anti-terrorism and surveillance policies are designed to keep us safe and free and are willing to whip, harry, bully and buy a vote in the Commons, then why will they not also put it to the people? Let them vote for a Labour candidate backing the Government's tough line on detention, ID cards, CCTV surveillance, curtailed right to protest, rendition, war and all the rest of it?
Do Labour not have the courage of their convictions?
It would be fascinating to see a cross-party alliance forming on this, a democratic liberties party ( which commenters on Liberal Conspiracy are discussing). We shall see where the political storm blows us over the next few weeks...
Labels: civil liberties, david davis
posted by Rachel at 9:05 am
Given your intelligent, moving and thought provoking article about breasts recently, I must protest about your use of the word 'tit' to describe an 'arse', namely the 'knob' from the disgraced 'organ' the Sun, which of course has plenty of tits but rarely in a particularly classy fashion.
It has been suggested that perhaps a victim of a terrorist attack should stand for the by-election.
If it had been in North London or thereabouts...
I respectfully disagree with your admiration of David Davis and indeed I must agree with the 42 day detention bill.
I think Davis did this out of an egocentric desire to leap out of the shadow of David Cameron and has literally said 'bugger' to party politics. His quasi-ethics that people are banging on about seem shallow to say the least.
Regarding 42 days. I think it is vital that the Police and security services are given all the time they need, with checks of course, to fight the Islamist threat we face. Comparisons to the IRA era can only be ridiculed.
I don't think Labour should field a candidate to massage the ego of a dissatisfied career politician. To get people to vote in a by-election based on a single principle is ludicrous.
There is a Youtube video of David Davis' speech here.
The resignation speech that Davis gave was intended to be delivered in the House of Commons, but Davis was over-ruled and not allowed to deliver it there. This weakened the effect of his powerful words.
We shall soon see how Whitehall/Fleet Street will play this...
As Davis stated, the 42 day detention aspect is an assault on 'Habeus Corpus', but also the 'monstrous' Counter-Terrorism Bill 2008 provisions for the holding of inquests without a jury/family member (Clause 65) & for the use of government selected 'special coroners' (Clause 67) are terrible assaults on justice an transparency.
Along with '42-day pre-charge detention', these two measures (in Clauses 65 & 67 of the Bill) were heavily criticised by the cross-party joint Justice Committee, led by Andrew Dismore. However, the amendments proposed by the Justice Committee were defeated (Clause 65 [310-287] & Clause 67 [331-269]) .
The House of Lords must throw out these Clauses.
You can watch the House of Commons debate on Clause 65 here. (This vote was held the evening (10/6/08) before the 42-Day vote and has been scarcely reported upon.
The Clause 65 (& 67) measures are ostensibly to deal with the Jean Charles de Menezes inquest case, but, of course, they would apply to all/any of the inquests (which have yet to be concluded) into those who died in the terrible events of July 7th 2005.
The ramifications of this are huge & all those who wish for justice/transparency/proper inquiry into the July 7th events/victims' deaths should be shouting out loud.
Thank you very much indeed Amber Leaf.
I'll be getting on to that next on the blog. The matter of the inquests should have got more coverage and will be raising it, along with other matters, shortly.
Beaman, thanks for the comment.
I do think he is sincere, but I understand the consternation.
jailhouse - heh, but if I ran for anything it would be on a civil liberties ticket...
so bit redundant in this case as DD has made his issue pretty plain
Political Umpire - flad you liked the breasts post. Kelvin is a right knob, you're quite correct.
Rachel,
I am glad to help publicize these matters, because very little is being said with regard to the secret inquests/specially selected coroners subjects elsewhere in the blogosphere or in the media.
I hope that you can add your weight to the public airing of these matters.
It is interesting that the existing coroners inquest system already allows for a coroner to invoke Public Interest Immunity (PII) procedures in cases where 'National Security' information cannot publically be divulged.
So why do the government see the need for the extra powers? What is being hidden? What aspect of 'National Security' could be associated with the victims' deaths or the bombers (who we were told, were 'under the radar'?)
It goes without saying that the measures will NOT assist in providing closure to any opened but yet to be concluded inquests.
There are the unconcluded inquests into the deaths of Jean Charles de Menezes, the 56 July 7th victims & approx 50 unfinished inquests in the North of Ireland which this nefarious legislation, if passed, will affect.
More information & research links are here.
Thanks for listening.
Amber Leaf, the 7/7 Inquiry Group have been raising the matter of the inquests via Oury Clark human rights lawyers, but is useful to have the links in the comments since much of this work has been going on behind the scenes.
I'm only sorry though that you linked to the conspiracy theory site 'July Seventh 'Truth': they are not researchers, they are unfortnately conspiracy theorists and I am not at all in agreement with what they do, and nor are any survivors or families I know.
In fact, the reaction of the families quoted in the media recently in a report about a particularly odious 'J7 Truth' conspiracy theorist, Nick Kollerstrom, (who is also a Holocaust denier who takes his WW2'research' from discredited racist antisemitic far right sources), shows the extent to which conspiracy theories about 7/7 cause distress.
J7 Truth try to hide the fact that they think the bombers are innocent.
They refused to take part in a BBC documentary investigating 7/7 conspiracy theories.
They present as impartial researchers; they are not.
If they campaigned on matters such as inquests I would have no problem with them, but when 'The Antagonist', one of the site's founders and main contributors claims that the bus explosion was pyrotechnics and those on it actors and stuntment, and that the tube explosions were a power surge, then you can probably see why they cause such anger and puzzlement to the families and survivors. It is a shame they havwe misled people into thinking they are not conspiracy theorists because they are - just better at hiding it and careful not to put forward what they think in public,
I have a no conspiracy theorist links policy on this blog and I no longer attempt to debate with conspiracy theorists. I have found it both pointless and exhausting, and on occasion it has led to threats and abuse towards me and my family.
Hence this healthwarning under your comment, because of the link to their site, which also contains distressing images of dead and dying pasengers on their 'research' forum.
I am aware of your thoughts on the J7 organisation, but the article that I linked to was 'campaigning on inquests'!
Also their research has been understood & acknowledged as 'helpful' by the Met Police, no less, (from the blog link).
but let's keep this on the subject of the reprehensible secret inquests & how to thwart the clauses in the awful CT Bill.
Rachel,
I have to say how much I admire your comments on Luke's blog re David Davis's stance on 42 days and the rest. You have unique standing on these issues and you have not shirked from telling it like it is.
Many thanks and every best wish
Reading elsewhere, I have come to the conclusion that the Murdoch press are 'in bed' with Nu Labour and this is what lies behind the stunt by Kelvin. The Sun and to some extent The Times are right behind the 42 days issue. Sky News is also far from neutral on many matters.
Just remember the hidden agenda behind a lot of the press.
I have come to the conclusion that the Murdoch press are 'in bed' with Nu Labourand this is what lies behind the stunt by Kelvin.
Murdock may be repellent, but he is no fool. Courting him so slavishly, when it is obvious to all he'll jump over to the Tories as the remains of the rosey glow of power fades from Labour's cheeks, is futile prostituting of one's ideals and moral compass*.
*Did Gordon leave his moral compass on a train seat like a careless civil servant with Top Secret al Qaeda files?
David Davis vs Rupert Murdoch over civil liberties? Now it all makes sense. We can all sit back no?