Civil Liberties

[Simian]

I haven't taken the time to research Civil Liberties properly so I admit to not knowing enough. But I am concerned about the very clear erosion of Civil Liberties in the UK. I have been stopped under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act three times in the last nine years: driving a van in the city helping friends to move house; taking photographs in London Bridge station and protesting against the Government's policies on Iraq. I was never arrested, because obviously I am not a terrorist, yet in the police's view I was a "possible" on those occasions. Being stopped under Section 44 feels a bit like being the subject of a bizarre candid camera joke that never delivers the payload. Ultimately they were unsettling experiences for me and I find myself wondering about other people's experience of the Terrorism Act and how much importance other people are attaching to their Civil Liberties...

I'm not intent on starting a political party slagging match, but with elections approaching and as a proud floating voter, I want to determine which party has taken the best stance on this. I had a quick look through the three main parties policies and I think I have found the Liberal Democrats to be giving the clearest and most favorable message and I like what The Freedom Bill is about.

Wondering what anyone else has to say? Or what advice anyone can offer on this subject...

GOVERNMENT & CIVIL LIBERTIES

The expenses scandal has destroyed public confidence in politicians. But it was the symptom of a wider problem: our political system is rotten. The Liberal Democrats are the only party that will radically shake up politics to make it fair, and put power in the hands of citizens, rather than politicians. We will give people a real say in who governs the country by introducing fair votes. We will stop big donations, give people the power to sack corrupt MPs and make sure every single MP and Lord pays full British taxes. Labour has made Britain less fair by taking away our hard-won rights and freedoms, often supported by the Conservatives. The Liberal Democrats are the only party that believes in a fairer, freer Britain, where everyone gets fair treatment and everyone?s privacy is respected.

Make votes fair ? We will change politics forever and abolish safe seats by introducing a fair, more proportional voting system for MPs, and for the House of Lords. By giving voters the choice between people as well as parties, it means they can stick with a party but punish a bad MP by voting for someone else.

Give you the right to sack MPs who have broken the rules - If an MP has acted egregiously and breaks the rules, there should be a mechanism by which they can be sacked. The Liberal Democrats would introduce a ?recall? system in which a small percentage of constituents could force a by-election for any MP suspended for wrongdoing. Power should be in the hands of voters at all times, not just on Election Day.

Get big money out of politics - Politics should be a battle of ideas, not marketing budgets. No-one should be able to buy influence or buy an election. We will take big money out of politics by capping donations and spending throughout the electoral cycle.

Make all MPs and Lords pay full British taxes - Top Conservative donor Lord Ashcroft gets to vote on the laws of Britain, but he hasn?t come clean about whether he pays full British taxes on all his earnings ? or whether he?s got nondomiciled tax status meaning he doesn?t pay tax on offshore income. We believe everyone who decides laws in Parliament should pay full British taxes. We will pass a law to ensure they do.

Introduce a Freedom Bill to restore and protect our civil liberties - Liberal Democrats have put together all the freedoms that have been undermined by Labour and the Tories in the last twenty years to restore them in a single Act of Parliament. We will scrap ID cards; get innocent people off the DNA database; regulate CCTV; allow people to protest at Parliament; top councils from spying on people; and stop unfair extradition to the US. See http://freedom.libdems.org.uk/

End plans to spy on your email and internet use - Labour want companies to store information about your email and internet use ? even storing data about what you do on social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace. This is a huge waste of money and time, which we will scrap. We will ensure your private data is kept safe.

Get innocent people off the DNA database to focus it on criminals. Your DNA contains some of the most private, personal information about you. We will remove innocent people from the database and stop storing DNA from innocent people and children in the future, too.

[Huguenot]

I don't think you can aim 'not to start a party political slanging match', and then say it will influence your vote.

If you're not voting on local issues, then you're voting on a party (political) manifesto.

I think the Lib Dem's position is that kind of wishful-thinking 'I ain't going to get voted in so will never get pulled up on it' balderdash. Here's a few obvious questions....

If they 'scrap ID cards' how are they going to counter benefits fraud? A more practical proposal would be to make ID cards voluntary (probably through NI cards), but the entitlement and receipt of taxpayer funding conditional on proof of identity that's cross-checked nationally.

Every penny these guys get is money directly out of your pocket. You have a reasonable right to impose an obligation on government to make sure it's going to the needy instead of the criminal, or else it stays with you.

On DNA databases, well fine, but what they going to do if the crime figures start to go the wrong way? You can't tie police hands behind their back and then ask them to do a better job. The question of 'innocence' is highly relative. We agree as a nation that once a person's done their time they shouldn't get punished again - hence they are 'innocent' of any new crime. We also know that 90% of crimes are by repeat offenders.....

CCTV is already regulated, they're just going to propose 'different' regulations - what are they?

For protest at parliament, what alternative plans do they have so the seat of democracy is not subject to security threats that would undermine democracy?

I don't see how they're going to 'stop councils spying on people' when they don't meet this ridiculous cloak and dagger characterisation at the moment. What councils do have is entitlement teams ensuring the recipients of funding or school places are not fraudulent. How do they intend to deliver on this with no 'spying'?

Unfair extradition to the US is attractive, but part of a broader bilateral arrangement. If we reduce a US 'benefit' what 'cost' are they likely to impose on us? If the Lib Dems don't know, then they're simply bullshitting.

Anyway, you get my drift, these are 'easy' non-binding commitments. However, they hold very little consideration or intelligent planning.

[louisiana]

Simian, civil liberties is not a party political issue.

Can I suggest that you, or anyone else concerned about civil liberties issues, support organisations that promote civil liberties and campaign so strongly on all this, such as Liberty (general/human rights), Open Rights Group (digital rights) and so on...?

These not-for-profits work hard with few resources. Just one supporter can pay for someone to work for a day on this stuff. 250 supporters can pay for a whole person to work like a dog (including evenings and some weekends) on this stuff for a whole year.

The best way of helping is with a standing order/direct debit each month: you hardly notice it if ?5 comes out of your account, and they have a reasonably assured source of income from month to month that does not have strings or provisos.

[Simian]

@Huguenot: I'm going through your post...

louisiana Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Simian, civil liberties is not a party political issue.

Really? Maybe historically. I think it is fast becoming one now and I don't think that I'm the only one thinking that. Recent article from Guardian.

> Can I suggest that you, or anyone else concerned

> about civil liberties issues, support

> organisations that promote civil liberties and

> campaign so strongly on all this, such as Liberty

> (general/human rights), Open Rights Group (digital

> rights) and so on...?

Already do. Have done ever since being stopped under Section 44. Isn't the purpose of these pressure groups to make the political parties listen and respond?

[Huguenot]

Just read the article Simian, and it quite clearly states that it's not a party political issue, but they want it to be one.

I don't have an anti-civil liberties perspective, I'd just like all those out there doing the j'accuse bit would put at least as much time into proposing alternative cost effective solutions.

Often as not they don't, because it's easier to criticise someone else than it is to do something yourself.

[Simian]

I'm not knowledgeable on the intricacies of politics so I'm getting confused already. Civil Liberties is NOT a party political issue? Is there a formal list of what can and can't be a political issue that I don't know about?

I was looking at PocketPolitics in the Democracy section and Liberal Democrats seem to be making Civil Liberties part of their policies...

Is this wrong?

[Huguenot]

There's two different points being made here.

I may be mistaken, but I think Louisiana was saying that you should care about civil liberties whatever party you support.

The Guardian duo said that the leading political figures don't care about civil liberties no matter what party they support.

Hence civil liberties isn't currently a party political issue.

What the Lib Dems are saying is that it's part of their manifesto so it is party political.

What I'm saying is that either way, the Lib Dems commitments on civil liberties seem to be unclear, ill thought out and out of context.

[Simian]

Huguenot. Thanks for the clarification. I get the impression that you seem to know what you are talking about, that you are well informed on current affairs and that you clearly have opinions.

I often think that much of the politics from any of the parties are unclear, ill thought out and out of context, not just those of the LibDems.

And that sometimes the policies that were thought to be clear, well thought out and in context can easily turn out to be a disaster.

I didn't really expect Labour to have a policy on Civil Liberties, they are responsible for much of the erosion.

If Conservatives are not making any commitments to stop/reverse the erosion, then I might and do suspect them to be complicit.

Even if other parties may have a good stance, they are too small to make a large difference in parliament.

I am glad that the Lib Dems are bringing Civil Liberties into the arena, even with what Huguenot says.

If LibDems are the ONLY party making commitments on Civil Liberties and if Civil Liberties is my/your number one concern at the next election, does that mean that the LibDems is possibly the best option in the election...?

[louisiana]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There's two different points being made here.

>

> I may be mistaken, but I think Louisiana was

> saying that you should care about civil liberties

> whatever party you support.

>

> The Guardian duo said that the leading political

> figures don't care about civil liberties no matter

> what party they support.

>

> Hence civil liberties isn't currently a party

> political issue.

>

> What the Lib Dems are saying is that it's part of

> their manifesto so it is party political.

>

> What I'm saying is that either way, the Lib Dems

> commitments on civil liberties seem to be unclear,

> ill thought out and out of context.

Thanks for the clarification Huguenot. Yes, my view is that we should all be concerned about CL, regardless of our political affiliations. And also that CL is not the exclusive preserve of any single party.

[BelowtheBelt]

Well what is true freedom ? That is the question you must try and ultimately define ?? It does not have a singular answer because it's perception will vary from place to place, people to people.

Constraints will always exist where it is deemed necessary to maintain any given status quo ...

Just a thought.

[PeckhamRose]

I recommend you see Taking Liberties the film,

Also keep in touch with the laws on street photography in the news section of the British Journal of Photography

[bonaome]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If they 'scrap ID cards' how are they going to

> counter benefits fraud? A more practical proposal

> would be to make ID cards voluntary (probably

> through NI cards), but the entitlement and receipt

> of taxpayer funding conditional on proof of

> identity that's cross-checked nationally.

It's the National Identity Register that I think the lib dems and civil rights folks have problems with, not the ID cards per se. The Liberals are proposing to repeal the ID cards act, a main aim of which is scrapping the NIR.

Nobody wants people living off benefits to which they're not entitled, but in practice benefits ID fraud is a miniscule percentage of the total Social Security budget and in fact the smallest area of Social Security fraud. I think perhaps a better way to tackle social security fraud is through proper identification of social security claimants ? rather than blanket compulsory introduction of ID cards for all citizens, claimants or not.

Conversely, the police have suggested ID Cards may create a huge underground lucrative criminal trade in fake IDs, estimated to be worth billions. At the end of the day, that which can be made by man can be faked by man. If you can forge a ?20 note, or fake a passport ...

Meanwhile the Govt says it's going to cost ?5.5 billion to put the scheme in place. But the LSE says they're having a giraffe and expects the true cost to the Govt to be many times that, and that says nothing about the hidden and incidental costs of introducing, maintaining and administering it.

I share @Simian's concerns and as far as I can see the Lib Dems are the only party that share them too. I don;t know what they would actually be able to do about them in the real world if elected, but at least they're starting from a position of concern with the werosion of civil liberties in the UK and a desire to try to redress the balance.

[Huguenot]

All good points, I just don't see an ID card as an erosion of civil liberties.

Someone posted the Living International review of the best places in the world to live. The UK came a dismal 26th or something. Yet the vast majority of the countries above the UK have a national ID card.

Most arguments about the ID card start with 'What if they used the ID card to...?'

I think those arguments are facile: what if they used cars to drive bombs to Omagh? Do we ban cars?

You're right that they could be counterfeited, however most crime is not massively organised criminal gangs, it's petty. Most immigration abuse and illegal working is petty, most identity theft is petty, the tube bombers were petty, public service abuse is petty.

I'm not saying that an ID card could solve these problems single-handedly, I'm saying that it represents no price at all, and I'd expect UK citizens paying tax into a social pool to require that the beneficiarys identify themselves.

[Magpie]

I think from a philisophical perspective the issue of ID cards is absolutely pivotal to civil liberties. Holding an ID Card suggests that your existence is only validated by the state. This entirely goes against the principle of democracy, whereby the State is validated by the public. I am a free born British Citizen by right, the state has no business forcing me to have an ID card, as they are in effect my employee.

[Huguenot]

Quite true Magpie, but democracy means an elected government.

You keep trying to make the government (or 'the state') the enemy, when really it's your neighbours.

If the majority wish the beneficiaries of their tax and communal ameneties to identify themselves as deserving of that benefit, then an ID card is democratic.

Currently to claim you have to produce a bank staement or an utility bill. It's ridiculous that we're handing over complete responsibility of our nation's immigration policies and welfare state to foreign owned banks and energy companies.

To get a utility bill you only need to steal an existing utility bill and ring up the helpline. You call that secure?

Now THAT's undemocratic.

So the what do the figures say:

58% believe UK ID cards should be compulsory (YouGov/Sunday Times)

70% or more are unconcerned that ID cards threaten civil liberties (MORI/Detica, YouGove/Telegraph)

71% agree that the government can be trusted to look after the data (YouGov/Telegraph)

82% think ID cards will cut benefit fraud (YouGov/Telegraph)

80% think ID cards will tackle immigration fraud (YouGov/Telegraph)

69% are willing to pay personally to carry them (ICM/Reform)

So democracy tells us that the perceived benefits of ID Cards outweigh the cost of having them, and outweigh the threat to civil liberty.

I agree with the majority: if the government wanted to behave corruptly they wouldn't need an ID card to do it. The police haven't needed ID cards to imprison suspects incorrectly.

If someone was going to steal vital info, we've already handed over so much data to credit card companies and Tesco points that it would be like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

[Brendan]

I think it hinges on the difference between a service the government will offer me which I will find useful but is nevertheless optional or an enforced registration system which validates my existence and criminalises me by default if I choose not to participate.

[Huguenot]

Point taken Brendan.

In most nations supporting ID cards you're issued with your ID registration at birth and legal immigrants on entry.

The ID is needed to to register for employment, to pay tax, and to reap social benefits.

Currently (i.e. before ID cars are isssued) UK Police can detain someone until their identity is proven if there is reasonable suspicion of a crime taking place.

I can see police being suspicious that you're an illegal immigrant if you refuse to show an ID card, and hence have neither been born, worked, paid taxed or claimed welfare.

However, I can't imagine that's practical, so I assume that it will only be a benefits card for a considerable amount of time.

[Magpie]

There are all ready many alternatives; Passports, NHS numbers, national insurance numbers, driving licenses etc. The ID card plan is unnecessary duplication, it is a white elephant and waste of taxpayers money.