Who will stop human rights abuses if the government puts itself above the law?
JVL Introduction
Martha Spurrier, director of Liberty, is bitterly critical of Dominic Raab’s newly-announced plans to “overhaul” the Human Rights Act.
It will she says, “weaken vital human rights protections, make justice conditional on good behaviour and insulate the state from accountability”.
This is in the wake of the Policing, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, with its “authoritarian, protest-crushing proposals”, described in the Independent a few days ago, as “an unprecedented assault on our freedom – Priti Patel must be stopped”.
This is in the wake of the nationality and borders bill, – a bill which makes it a criminal offence to arrive in the UK without permission, with a maximum sentence of up to four years.
And watch George Monbiot’s new DoubleDown News video on these two bills, arguing that “the government is taking away our liberties on an industrial scale”.
This article was originally published by the Guardian on Wed 15 Dec 2021. Read the original here.
Who will stop human rights abuses if the government puts itself above the law?
Dominic Raab’s attempt to hollow out protections and stifle judges will make state abuse of power unpunishable
Loading article text…
An observation on the revoking of citizenship element:
In the present climate and context – much, but not all, briefly listed and alluded to in this article – it would not seem reasonable to consider the revoking of citizenship as being limited in impact to refugees and immigrants alone.
The law works on precedent. With legislation and legal principles established in one area finding themselves used in other areas.
It was not too many years ago in which specific legislative provisions relating to surveillance under rushed anti-terrorism RIPA law were found to be being utilised elsewhere. Two examples spring to mind:
– there were cases of these elements of the anti-terrorism provisions being used to check on parents suspected of living outside school catchment areas in which their children attended school’
– similarly , Councils were using anti-terror provisions to monitor householders usage of refuse bins.
The point being that it seems entirely reasonable given the present trajectory that such revoking of citizenship legislation could well be used against anyone else considered to be “problematic” in a context where any opposition towards a collapsing status quo order is being systematically eradicated by any means possible.
Protestors?; demonstrators?; strikers? pickets?; political opponents?; anyone who deviates from whatever sacred narrative is flavour of the month – from those labelled ‘anti-semites’ in the hierarchy of racism through to whatever divisive sacred narrative is being pushed by the institutions of the Corporate State to enforce a hierarchy of oppression?
Take your pick.
“Frying pan and Fire” as supplied re Starmer’s attitude to due process elsewhere on JVL blog:
Does anyone recall Churchill’s allegation during the 1945 General Election about the likely policing activity of a (majority) Labour government? And does anyone recall George Orwell’s comments about the scant respect shown by the 1945-1950 government for civil liberties and freedom of expression? There was plenty of freedom of expression for ‘Mr Cube’ (propaganda arm of giant sugar refining capitalists like Tate and Lyle, whose colonialist record is and was plain for all to see), not to mention the iron and steel companies – certainly part of the ‘commanding heights of the economy’. But there was no freedom of speech, even at Speakers’ Corner- especially not for anarchists – against whom Regulation 18b, a wartime emergency used against Oswald Mosley – was invoked.
Is (industrially relevant) regulation 1AA – used to threaten imprisonment against strikers at Betteshanger, one of our local coalmines, available as an Order in Council?
“
George Monbiot Guardian Wolf in sheep’s clothing.
I have the same views on this as Dave Hansell (above).
Walter Wolfgang was reportedly threatened with being arrested under anti-terrorism laws at the Labour conference.
You know all those instructions one gets about writing a letter to your MP? Top of the list is always “make sure you are polite”. Well, Dominic Raab is my MP (I expect to read some commiserations regarding my plight) and after years of writing ‘polite letters’ and receiving cut and paste platitudes in return with never an attempt to answer any specific question asked, I let rip in the last one I wrote him. Oh did it feel good!
His majority in the last election fell from a 23,000 majority to a mere 2,743. If Labour endorsed tactical voting in this seat where they have absolutely zero chance of a win we could rid ourselves of this would be dictator.
If there are no complaints and protests then, ipso facto all must be content in this “the best of all possible worlds.” Was Dr Pangloss wrong? Has Boris read Voltaire?