City Strolls - events - meetings

Tuesday, March 08, 2005

Prevention of terrorism bill

Dear All,

As you may be aware the Government is hastily pushing through some of the most draconian measures ever introduced into parliament in recent parliamentary history, the bill effectively enables the government to curtail the freedoms of any individual where evidence (if any?) against them is not sufficient to bring a case to a court of law, to such an extent that it becomes effective imprisonment by another name.The decision to do this will be made by the Home secretary at his discretion, without recourse to an independent body examining the case. This effectively empowers the executive with the authority of a police state whereby they can choose to impose these 'control orders' on any individual under the pretext of "considering that it is necessary, for purposes connected with protecting members of the public from the risk of terrorism, to make an order imposing obligations on the individual." and can potentially also be used against political opponents and dissidents.

I therefore urge you to contact your local MP immediately, preferably as a group and insist that this bill is immoral and reverses centuries of sacrifices to secure the freedoms we enjoy today, so that it is incumbent on them to vote against these measures. Many Labour MPs did not even have the backbone to vote on this bill for fear of defying the government whip, knowing that the bill is patently unjust and wrong.

The legislation will be debated in the House of Lords on Monday and Tuesday before going back to the Commons for its final reading on Wednesday. If Mr Clarke seeks to overturn the Lords' amendments, he risks being without a law when existing powers of detention without trial lapse on 14 March.

Peter Bottomley conservative MP spoke during the debate and voted aganist it

"It is significant that the sort of terrorist suspect that we saw during the IRA troubles could secure a lawyer such as Gareth Peirce to establish alibis and demonstrate that suspicions were not well founded. If that is to be thrown away, I firmly believe that the House has a duty not to leave the Bill to the other place, but to call the Government, the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip to account and invite the Home Secretary to explain openly the problems that justify the approach that he is adopting in the Bill.

The truth is that some of us, probably including the Leader of the House, took pride in breaking control orders when they were applied to people in South Africa or when prevention of terrorism legislation was used to control people such as the late Reverend Beyers Naude, or when the defence and aid fund was used to channel funds from Scandinavia, north-west Europe and this country in order to defend people in South Africa. Yet the legislation that we are now proposing will prevent people from being defended in a similar way because they will not have been accused. People will not know what they have been charged with."


Full text of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmbills/061/05061.1-7.html

Further Information on the Bill, Parliamentary debate and voting record.
http://www.sacc.org.uk

How to find your MP
http://www.locata.co.uk/commons/

Check to see if your MP voted and which way
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmhansrd/cm050228/debtext/50228-48.htm

I hope that you will treat this matter with the urgency it deserves because it affects each and everyone of us.

Surfraz
Bob, 14:06

0 Comments:

Add a comment

<< Home