Judges liken terror laws to Nazi Germany
Independent Online | 17.10.2005 06:12
Don't forget that Bliar used his still-unsupported Conspiracy Theory about 7/7/21, which was a possible False Flag Attack, to get what he wanted.
The Courts, and the British People, should demand to see his evidence before allowing him to proceed.
The Courts, and the British People, should demand to see his evidence before allowing him to proceed.
Judges liken terror laws to Nazi Germany
By Marie Woolf, Raymond Whitaker and Severin Carrell
Published: 16 October 2005
A powerful coalition of judges, senior lawyers and politicians has warned that the Government is undermining freedoms citizens have taken for granted for centuries and that Britain risks drifting towards a police state. One of the country's most eminent judges has said that undermining the independence of the courts has frightening parallels with Nazi Germany.
Senior legal figures are worried that "inalienable rights" could swiftly disappear unless Tony Blair ceases attacking the judiciary and freedoms enshrined in the Human Rights Act.
Lord Ackner, a former law lord, said there was a contradiction between the Government's efforts to separate Parliament and the judiciary through the creation of a supreme court, and its instinct for directing judges how to behave. He cautioned against "meddling" by politicians in the way the courts operate.
"I think it is terribly important there should not be this apparent battle between the executive and the judiciary. The judiciary has been put there by Parliament in order to ensure that the executive acts lawfully. If we take that away from the judiciary we are really apeing what happened in Nazi Germany," he said.
Lord Ackner added that the Government's proposals to hold terrorist suspects for three months without charge were overblown. "The police have made a case for extending the two weeks but to extend it to three months is excessive."
Lord Lester QC, a leading human rights lawyer, expressed concern that the Government was flouting human rights law and meddling with the courts.
"If the Prime Minister and other members of the Government continue to threaten to undermine the Human Rights Act and interfere with judicial independence we shall have to secure our basic human rights and freedoms with a written constitution," he said.
Lord Carlile, a deputy High Court judge, warned against the whittling away of historic civil liberties. "We have to be acute about protecting what is taken for granted as inalienable rights. In the United States the Patriot Act included a system whereby a witness to a terrorist incident can be detained for up to a year. This is in the land of the free."
The senior barrister remarked that judges had now replaced MPs as the defenders of basic human rights.
"People use d to look to their MPs as the first port of call to deal with any perceived injustice by the executive. Now there is an increasing tendency for people to look to the judges to protect their liberties," he said.
Mark Oaten, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said Tony Blair was transforming Britain into an authoritarian state. "In eight years he has dismantled centuries of judicial protection. Britain's reputation as the world's most tolerant nation is now under threat," he said.
If Mr Blair's proposed terror legislation was unamended, said Anthony Scrivener QC, "Britain would be a significant step closer to a police state". The Prime Minister spoke of "summary justice", said the lawyer: "It would be better named street justice."
This week the Law Lords will consider whether evidence obtained under torture abroad should be admissible in British courts. Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said admitting such evidence would undermine one of Britain's basic freedoms.
"The Prime Minister is trying in his own words to try to tear up the rules of the game," she said. "The rules of liberal democracy are about no torture, free speech and fair trials. Every time he denigrates these he undermines the fabric of our society."
A powerful coalition of judges, senior lawyers and politicians has warned that the Government is undermining freedoms citizens have taken for granted for centuries and that Britain risks drifting towards a police state. One of the country's most eminent judges has said that undermining the independence of the courts has frightening parallels with Nazi Germany.
Senior legal figures are worried that "inalienable rights" could swiftly disappear unless Tony Blair ceases attacking the judiciary and freedoms enshrined in the Human Rights Act.
Lord Ackner, a former law lord, said there was a contradiction between the Government's efforts to separate Parliament and the judiciary through the creation of a supreme court, and its instinct for directing judges how to behave. He cautioned against "meddling" by politicians in the way the courts operate.
"I think it is terribly important there should not be this apparent battle between the executive and the judiciary. The judiciary has been put there by Parliament in order to ensure that the executive acts lawfully. If we take that away from the judiciary we are really apeing what happened in Nazi Germany," he said.
Lord Ackner added that the Government's proposals to hold terrorist suspects for three months without charge were overblown. "The police have made a case for extending the two weeks but to extend it to three months is excessive."
Lord Lester QC, a leading human rights lawyer, expressed concern that the Government was flouting human rights law and meddling with the courts.
"If the Prime Minister and other members of the Government continue to threaten to undermine the Human Rights Act and interfere with judicial independence we shall have to secure our basic human rights and freedoms with a written constitution," he said.
Lord Carlile, a deputy High Court judge, warned against the whittling away of historic civil liberties. "We have to be acute about protecting what is taken for granted as inalienable rights. In the United States the Patriot Act included a system whereby a witness to a terrorist incident can be detained for up to a year. This is in the land of the free."
The senior barrister remarked that judges had now replaced MPs as the defenders of basic human rights.
"People use d to look to their MPs as the first port of call to deal with any perceived injustice by the executive. Now there is an increasing tendency for people to look to the judges to protect their liberties," he said.
Mark Oaten, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said Tony Blair was transforming Britain into an authoritarian state. "In eight years he has dismantled centuries of judicial protection. Britain's reputation as the world's most tolerant nation is now under threat," he said.
If Mr Blair's proposed terror legislation was unamended, said Anthony Scrivener QC, "Britain would be a significant step closer to a police state". The Prime Minister spoke of "summary justice", said the lawyer: "It would be better named street justice."
This week the Law Lords will consider whether evidence obtained under torture abroad should be admissible in British courts. Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said admitting such evidence would undermine one of Britain's basic freedoms.
"The Prime Minister is trying in his own words to try to tear up the rules of the game," she said. "The rules of liberal democracy are about no torture, free speech and fair trials. Every time he denigrates these he undermines the fabric of our society."
By Marie Woolf, Raymond Whitaker and Severin Carrell
Published: 16 October 2005
A powerful coalition of judges, senior lawyers and politicians has warned that the Government is undermining freedoms citizens have taken for granted for centuries and that Britain risks drifting towards a police state. One of the country's most eminent judges has said that undermining the independence of the courts has frightening parallels with Nazi Germany.
Senior legal figures are worried that "inalienable rights" could swiftly disappear unless Tony Blair ceases attacking the judiciary and freedoms enshrined in the Human Rights Act.
Lord Ackner, a former law lord, said there was a contradiction between the Government's efforts to separate Parliament and the judiciary through the creation of a supreme court, and its instinct for directing judges how to behave. He cautioned against "meddling" by politicians in the way the courts operate.
"I think it is terribly important there should not be this apparent battle between the executive and the judiciary. The judiciary has been put there by Parliament in order to ensure that the executive acts lawfully. If we take that away from the judiciary we are really apeing what happened in Nazi Germany," he said.
Lord Ackner added that the Government's proposals to hold terrorist suspects for three months without charge were overblown. "The police have made a case for extending the two weeks but to extend it to three months is excessive."
Lord Lester QC, a leading human rights lawyer, expressed concern that the Government was flouting human rights law and meddling with the courts.
"If the Prime Minister and other members of the Government continue to threaten to undermine the Human Rights Act and interfere with judicial independence we shall have to secure our basic human rights and freedoms with a written constitution," he said.
Lord Carlile, a deputy High Court judge, warned against the whittling away of historic civil liberties. "We have to be acute about protecting what is taken for granted as inalienable rights. In the United States the Patriot Act included a system whereby a witness to a terrorist incident can be detained for up to a year. This is in the land of the free."
The senior barrister remarked that judges had now replaced MPs as the defenders of basic human rights.
"People use d to look to their MPs as the first port of call to deal with any perceived injustice by the executive. Now there is an increasing tendency for people to look to the judges to protect their liberties," he said.
Mark Oaten, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said Tony Blair was transforming Britain into an authoritarian state. "In eight years he has dismantled centuries of judicial protection. Britain's reputation as the world's most tolerant nation is now under threat," he said.
If Mr Blair's proposed terror legislation was unamended, said Anthony Scrivener QC, "Britain would be a significant step closer to a police state". The Prime Minister spoke of "summary justice", said the lawyer: "It would be better named street justice."
This week the Law Lords will consider whether evidence obtained under torture abroad should be admissible in British courts. Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said admitting such evidence would undermine one of Britain's basic freedoms.
"The Prime Minister is trying in his own words to try to tear up the rules of the game," she said. "The rules of liberal democracy are about no torture, free speech and fair trials. Every time he denigrates these he undermines the fabric of our society."
A powerful coalition of judges, senior lawyers and politicians has warned that the Government is undermining freedoms citizens have taken for granted for centuries and that Britain risks drifting towards a police state. One of the country's most eminent judges has said that undermining the independence of the courts has frightening parallels with Nazi Germany.
Senior legal figures are worried that "inalienable rights" could swiftly disappear unless Tony Blair ceases attacking the judiciary and freedoms enshrined in the Human Rights Act.
Lord Ackner, a former law lord, said there was a contradiction between the Government's efforts to separate Parliament and the judiciary through the creation of a supreme court, and its instinct for directing judges how to behave. He cautioned against "meddling" by politicians in the way the courts operate.
"I think it is terribly important there should not be this apparent battle between the executive and the judiciary. The judiciary has been put there by Parliament in order to ensure that the executive acts lawfully. If we take that away from the judiciary we are really apeing what happened in Nazi Germany," he said.
Lord Ackner added that the Government's proposals to hold terrorist suspects for three months without charge were overblown. "The police have made a case for extending the two weeks but to extend it to three months is excessive."
Lord Lester QC, a leading human rights lawyer, expressed concern that the Government was flouting human rights law and meddling with the courts.
"If the Prime Minister and other members of the Government continue to threaten to undermine the Human Rights Act and interfere with judicial independence we shall have to secure our basic human rights and freedoms with a written constitution," he said.
Lord Carlile, a deputy High Court judge, warned against the whittling away of historic civil liberties. "We have to be acute about protecting what is taken for granted as inalienable rights. In the United States the Patriot Act included a system whereby a witness to a terrorist incident can be detained for up to a year. This is in the land of the free."
The senior barrister remarked that judges had now replaced MPs as the defenders of basic human rights.
"People use d to look to their MPs as the first port of call to deal with any perceived injustice by the executive. Now there is an increasing tendency for people to look to the judges to protect their liberties," he said.
Mark Oaten, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said Tony Blair was transforming Britain into an authoritarian state. "In eight years he has dismantled centuries of judicial protection. Britain's reputation as the world's most tolerant nation is now under threat," he said.
If Mr Blair's proposed terror legislation was unamended, said Anthony Scrivener QC, "Britain would be a significant step closer to a police state". The Prime Minister spoke of "summary justice", said the lawyer: "It would be better named street justice."
This week the Law Lords will consider whether evidence obtained under torture abroad should be admissible in British courts. Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said admitting such evidence would undermine one of Britain's basic freedoms.
"The Prime Minister is trying in his own words to try to tear up the rules of the game," she said. "The rules of liberal democracy are about no torture, free speech and fair trials. Every time he denigrates these he undermines the fabric of our society."
Independent Online
Homepage:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article320005.ece
Comments
Hide the following 5 comments
We need anti-terrorism laws to beat terrorism!
17.10.2005 12:38
Saddam Husseins' Iraq on ther other hand actually did have very strong parralells with Nazi Germany and so does Iran for that matter. Simply calling elected government and politicans whom you disagree with nazi, does not further your argument. On the contrary when you finally resort to calling your opponants nazis then you have lost the argument altogether!
Voice of reason
...
17.10.2005 13:31
Hermes
What is Reason?
17.10.2005 14:42
And did you realise that Hitler justified his attacks on jews, communists, liberals, and foreign aggressions because he told the country that it was "under attack". He even invaded Poland because he said they were "attacking Germany". We know this to be false now. But your "sense of reason" has been clouded by LIES, LIES and more LIES.
Stop this madness before we really do end up apeing the Nazi state. Wake up and realise that the 'war on terror' is actually the perpetual war on freedom that will last forever because the enemy is invisible and therefore can never be beaten. Read 1984 for a start.
Freedom is Slavery. War is Peace. Ignorance is Strength.
Now vote Labour.
Voice of Madness
Nonsense!
17.10.2005 16:25
OK
Regarding Your Disinformation
17.10.2005 17:08
Really? Could you, perhaps, elaborate on this a bit? It sounds to me as if you're simply repeating something you've heard. I want to see if you understand what you're talking about.
You do understand, of course, that "terrorism" - aka Fourth Generation Warfare - looks for cracks in systems, and utilizes those cracks. Putting up more bricks is futile, because in doing so, you simply create more cracks.
And there is no evidence to support the Theory that any of you are under "dire threat" from anything. (Don't forget that these same "leaders" have lied to you about such things before, in order to numb your rational minds, and dupe people into supporting - or at least excusing - indefensible, illegal, and immoral policies of Naked Aggression ...)
Why would you sacrifice your rights for a bunch of LIARS, especially when legal experts are throwing up red flags right and left? Do you not agree that the criminal LIARS demanding these new powers bear the Burden of Proof for their many outrageous and fantastic claims, before they are allowed to proceed?
"Terrorists" have killed or harmed very few British people, and most of what has been called "terrorism" was actually defensive Guerrilla Warfare in an Illegal War of Aggression for Profit, started by the US/UK.
Meanwhile, the people demanding these powers have already slaughtered untold tens of thousands of innocent men, women, and children, and wish to widen their military conquest.
"To thwart those intent on using violence and terror to further their aims."
So you DO agree that we should tighten, or regain, some control over these Neo-Fascist leaders, like Bush/Bliar, before they attack and slaughter innocent people by the tens of thousands again, as they did in Iraq ... ?
"As for the comparrision with Nazi Germany ..."
I think I'll take the informed word of legal experts over yours, thank-you.
"Britain is a free democracy where everyone has the right to say and do what they want within the law."
When a majority opposes the Government's agenda, but they forge ahead anyway, you cannot call this "democracy" with a straight face any longer. And this is just what this discussion is about. These laws destroy the very rights you claim exist, which differentiate this from a totalitarian Regime.
"Nazi Germany was a brutal dictatorship where no freedoms were allowed"
But it didn't start out that way, did it?
The People's rights were slowly eroded by Extremist "leaders", with a very fixed agenda of military aggression and "historic transformation", which the People allowed to go forward, because they were afraid of the "dire threat" they were under from "ze terrorists", etc. so the Nazis seized for themselves unparralelled new powers in order to deal with this "threat" that only they seemed able to see.
Sound familiar?
"Saddam Husseins' Iraq"
Is not the issue here. That's Disinformation. (And do not forget that many of the same people in power right now - the "Neo-Cons" - created Saddam and made him what he was ...)
Even if there were a million other countries whose systems parralelled Nazi Germany, they would be irrelevant to this discussion, which is about the new powers being seized by the same Government which LIED about Iraq, in order to feign justification for a war they knew full well violated International Law.
That same Government sidestepped the British courts, to seize for itself these powers, which those courts had vehemently denied it for four years straight, for this very reason. The Government used its still-unproven Conspiracy Theories about 7/7/21, which just as easily could have been carried out by them, in order to seize these powers.
"Simply calling elected government and politicans"
The revelations about Postal Voting and other "irregularities" calls their "elected" status into question ...
"whom you disagree with nazi"
That is not what these Judges are doing.
They are commenting, from a highly informed position, I might add, on how these laws closely parallel those created by Hitler during his rise to power. This should give the British People pause, if nothing else, and it is interesting (and rather troubling) to see you defending the Government from such informed criticism here ...
"On the contrary when you finally resort to calling your opponants nazis then you have lost the argument altogether!"
However, your Disinformation falls apart upon your need to manipulate the debate. These judges have done no such thing, so I guess it is your "argument" (not so much an argument as a Distraction) which falls apart under inspection.
These judges are responding to the laws themselves, as they closely parallel laws passed by Hitler, in order to "legitimize" his abhorrent crimes. Remember that old saying that "Everything Hitler did was legal"? That's what's being discussed here.
If you truly do not understand, perhaps you should refrain from commenting in the future.
But then, how would you earn your keep ... ?
I undestand how you Hard Right nutters despise Academia (As what you support is an "Anti-Intellectual Revolution", much like Hitler's), but scholars the world over have written at great length about the direct similarities between Hitler's Nazis, and the Neo-Con/Neo-Fascist, Bush/PNAC/Bliar Reign of Terror.
Perhaps you should go check them out.
Red Flag To The British People - Ignore It At Your Own Peril