Are MP's useless
Try to understand the debate about the proposal for detention for up to 42 days without charge one begins to feel that MP's do not know or understand what they are doing. It is clearly a matter of conscience, nothing to do with political parties much as the debate about embryology was taken away from the childish behaviour of political gangs.
Why if something is religious it is called a matter of conscience but if something is an ethical or moral issue is it not a matter of conscience. Surely to lock innocent people up for 42 days without being able to defend themselves is surely a serious matter but it is being discussed as if it is some sort of game. Why is it not seen like this, largely because those proposing the plans always present the case that the person being held will prove to be guilty but of course in practice that will not be the case.
We are constantly being told that after 11 September the world has changed. This is like most statements mostly false. There was at least one previous attempt to blow the twin towers up and even in Europe the IRA and ETA cheerfully blew up bombs which killed innocent civilians. The British government even tried internal exile, prison with trial to stop the IRA but that was not the solution.
Imprisoning people for 42 days will have no positive benefit and will clearly damage our human rights. Legislation to take away peoples rights almost never get reversed and the use will spread as as happened with other many such pieces of legislation. We have recently seen local authorities using anti-terrorist legislation to spy on families about school places, even a story of DWP using heat sensors to try to prove someone was cohabiting, 42 days will not become common but the prrsent maximum will soon become the norm and many innocent people will be locked up for a month merely because the police suspect them.
What is going on in Parliament, horse-trading up to the last minute, hardly a rational considered debate. The members of parliament should be ashamed of themselves and their collective behaviour.
Why if something is religious it is called a matter of conscience but if something is an ethical or moral issue is it not a matter of conscience. Surely to lock innocent people up for 42 days without being able to defend themselves is surely a serious matter but it is being discussed as if it is some sort of game. Why is it not seen like this, largely because those proposing the plans always present the case that the person being held will prove to be guilty but of course in practice that will not be the case.
We are constantly being told that after 11 September the world has changed. This is like most statements mostly false. There was at least one previous attempt to blow the twin towers up and even in Europe the IRA and ETA cheerfully blew up bombs which killed innocent civilians. The British government even tried internal exile, prison with trial to stop the IRA but that was not the solution.
Imprisoning people for 42 days will have no positive benefit and will clearly damage our human rights. Legislation to take away peoples rights almost never get reversed and the use will spread as as happened with other many such pieces of legislation. We have recently seen local authorities using anti-terrorist legislation to spy on families about school places, even a story of DWP using heat sensors to try to prove someone was cohabiting, 42 days will not become common but the prrsent maximum will soon become the norm and many innocent people will be locked up for a month merely because the police suspect them.
What is going on in Parliament, horse-trading up to the last minute, hardly a rational considered debate. The members of parliament should be ashamed of themselves and their collective behaviour.
posted by Unknown at
12:27 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home