Will Freedom Survive?

You know the world’s gone mad when a high profile Conservative MP chooses to resign his seat at the height of his party’s popularity to fight a battle of conscience which, whilst being vital for the wellbeing of the country, is likely mostly immaterial to most prospective Tory voters. But in response to his failure as the nominal leader of the ‘no’ campaign in Parliament against Gordon Brown & Jacqui Smith’s appalling proposal to increase the maximum length of detention without charge from 28 days to 42 days, he resigned his ultra-safe seat to fight reelection on the single issue of New Labour’s ‘strangulation’ of civil liberties. The response to both the government’s disgraceful victory and Davis’ shock resignation has been fascinating, fast-moving and very difficult to blog.

As I have opined in a previous post, the principle of extended detention without charge is something I abhor. There was no legitimate reason for Parliament to have extended it to 28 days, less still for the further extension to 42 days. No terror investigation or prosecution has failed because they ran out of time at 28 days, and as Sir John Major quite rightly pointed out, we are not in a somehow ‘new’ age of history where we are under such danger as a nation that civil rights for all need to be curbed. Quite the contrary – there is no overwhelming threat which endangers us all, requiring our subjugation to save us. If there is any overarching lesson from World War II it is that of human rights, and that they are indivisible. If they don’t apply to every single one of us at all times, then they apply to none of us ever. That the government should ignore the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (following on from the Blair government’s tradition going back at least to 2003) is beyond shameful, preferring instead to use this issue as a political tool to attempt to shore up a failing Prime Minister. Nick Clegg said:

“Everyone knows that the proposal will not become law – it will be blocked in the Lords, the Human Rights Commission will challenge it in court, and the European court of human rights will declare it illegal.

“Why is he playing politics with our liberties for a bill that no one thinks is necessary, no one thinks will work in practice and everyone knows will never reach the statute book?”

And he was right. It was entirely about restoring lost authority by whatever means were available. And Brown used them:

…rumours swept Westminster that the party which normally votes with the Tories had been bought off by promises of £100m of infrastucture projects in Northern Ireland and that the province would keep revenues from water charges rather than hand them over to the Treasury.

Apparently Iris Robinson (arch DUP loon) gloated after the vote, waving nine fingers (representing the nine DUP MPs, who themselves embodied Brown’s margin of victory). This is the party which hates Brown, yet given the vocal opposition to him from his own party, which melted away in the days preceding the vote, he also managed to buy off enemies in New Labour. Both that and many of them are completely stupid:

Mohammad Sarwar, Labour MP for Glasgow Govan, has also decided to back the government after he was given an undertaking that anyone locked up for as long as 42 days and then released without charge would receive compensation on a day-by-day basis.

If that’s the standard of thinking which guides the thinking of governing party MPs when it completely (and obviously) misses the point, we’re all lost. Diane Abbot however bucked the trend saying:

It is easy to stand up for the civil liberties of our friends or of people in our trade union, but it is not easy to stand up for the civil liberties of people who are unpopular, suspected and look suspicious—people the tabloids print a horror story about every day.

However, it is a test of parliament that we are willing to stand up for the civil liberties of the marginalised, the suspect and the unpopular.

I came into politics about those issues, and I believe that if there is any content at all in ministers’ constant speeches about community cohesion we must offer every part of our community not just the appearance but the reality of justice and equality before the law.

But it was David Davis who the next day shocked not just his party, not just the parliament, but the country at large too. I can accept that his resignation as an MP smacked of vanity (there’s no chance he’ll lose his bid for re-election), even of misplaced hubris (the Shadow Cabinet opposed 42 days, which was by no means representative of the parliamentary Conservative Party, nor of the party in the country). But it struck me as the act of someone who had (along with very many of us) had enough of New Labour’s unprecedented assault on civil liberties in this country, taking an extraordinary step to enforce a dialogue with the country which the media couldn’t ignore. Brown tries to move the agenda onwards? Impossible – firstly because all parties in the Lords will trample over this tawdry victory, partly because Davis will himself be the story, talking the whole time about civil liberties, and no doubt because Trevor Phillips will start launching court cases against the government.

It was a remarkable piece of political theatre, which has been strikingly oddly received by the media. Overwhelmingly Davis has been portrayed as out of step (and the most recent opinion polls about 42 days suggest there may be some validity to that); a maverick more concerned with grandstanding than his party’s wellbeing. I am unlikely ever to support the Conservative Party, but I would disagree. Throughout the last 11 years there has been an utter absence of principle in how Britain has been governed and represented. Davis’ action, when all he had to do was just sit back and wait to become Home Secretary in two years, demonstrated principle and honour in relation to the most important issues of all, ones which should transcend partisan politics, yet in this day and age do not. It may be that when the vote is rerun in the Commons in the near future Brown will lose anyway – his victory after all was only achieved through the intervention of a bunch of hardcore enemies, making him look extraordinarily weak. But Davis’ deliberate departure from the political elite (David Cameron and his party are unlikely to forgive him for opening up both partisan and intra-party lines of attack) has finally allowed a focal point for those of us who have had enough to come together on.

It’s clear from looking at which papers and news channels have attacked Davis the strongest who is really calling the shots here – Gordon Brown is trying to appeal to Rupert Murdoch. We have to hope (thankfully there is already plentiful evidence for this) that the media’s negative response to Davis isn’t really representative of the mood of the country, and that at the very least he succeeds by example, even in small measure, in forcing his fellow parliamentarians to guarantee the protection of civil liberties on principle.


3 responses to “Will Freedom Survive?

  1. I back Davis all the way. It’s nice to see a politician standing up and taking extraordinary measures. I’ve heard a lot of people criticise him for giving up a position where he could have been a lot more influencial in the fight for civil liberties but the publicity this move has attracted is a big bonus. It encourages debate and provides a rallying point. Labours retaliatory statements are useless. Who cares if he supports capital punishment? That’s not the issue in question cos nobody’s trying to reenstate it. He’s against these intrusive and disproportionate measures which is all that matters. Someone needs to remind everyone what thirty years of terrorism from the IRA was like. There wasn’t all this histeria then! I hope people won’t be gulled by the media into a negative view of him.

  2. There wasn’t all this hysteria then, because Diane Abbott was dead right – this is about Muslims. 42 days won’t be used against the Real IRA or the Continuation IRA or any other faction if they reassert themselves briefly, it’ll be young Muslim men (and women).

    I do think that Davis’ inconsistent background on civil liberties and human rights is important, sadly, because it paints an uneven picture. He does indeed support the death penalty, he was against the repeal of Section 28, and was hardly supportive of equality when debating same-sex adoption rights. It calls into question his motivation on these issues, although as with you, I couldn’t support his actions more strongly. Could he have had more influence if he’d waited till becoming Home Secretary in 2010? Maybe, but I don’t think ‘Dave”s natural position is to be against the ‘strangulation’ of civil liberties – it’s sure not the natural position of the Tory Party. With Labour choosing not to field a candidate after all, it’ll be interesting to see where this campaign goes. The only other one man protest movement I’ve seen before is Brian Haw.

  3. Hmm I almost feel like I’m commenting just to comment, but I was under the impression that the House of Lords could only delay not kill this bill. Also given the move by the EU legislators to increase the period you can detain illegal immigrants coupled with Britain’s efforts to reduce the allure of immigrant benefits as well as the bizarre protection from deportation back to countries where they have been convicted of crimes and would receive the death penalty( Abu Qatada) I doubt there will be sustained opposition to the law change.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s