...it's going to be a media storm with a constitutional right to try and get in on the deal.

It'll be hard work trying to draw any attention away from Davis or the Murdoch candidate, but single issue groups like NO2ID and anti-detention candidates could get some good publicity. If nothing else it will push the civil liberties issue into wider debate. The more people learn about the issues the more they tend to get pissed off.

Hell, my mum's a retired primary school teacher and she's said she "just won't have one". I'm fairly optimistic about this.

“Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.”
- Club of Rome

The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation. It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation states, however powerful. The global community must be assured of environmental security."

"It is the responsibility of each human being today to choose between the force of darkness and the force of light. We must therefore transform our attitudes, and adopt a renewed respect for the superior laws of Divine Nature."

"Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable. A shift is necessary which will require a vast strengthening of the multilateral system, including the United Nations."
Maurice Strong

Do not the imperatives of "carbon-driven climate change" necessitate strengthening and centralisation of global government, in line with the anti-civil liberties policy being pursued by New Labour, as promoted and financed by the behind the scenes billion- and trillionaires.

Check out  http://green-agenda.com/globalrevolution.html

** he is also a climate change denier and used to work for Tate & Lyle, who made sugar drug addicts of us all while harvesting African's to do their work for them. Mm, lovely man to have as flag bearer for Civil Liberties

"..we need a real movement for change in the country that opposes authoritarianism with radical community action, makes clear that 28 days is still to much, and opposes war, privatisation, racism and the other aspects of the authoritarian agenda.. People should enter this debate, but should go much, much further than Davis could ever go."

Will the Real Civil Libertarians Please Stand Up?
Aled Dilwyn Fisher

This morning, I saw an interview of David Davis given by Andrew Marr. For the BBC's standards, this was a pretty good interview in terms of testing his reasons for the shock resignation, and it seemed at some points that Davis was genuinely being twisted by Marr's questions. Though Davis took the politician's slick route out of most of the questions (and repeated the same tired lines on Sky News later on), his ambiguity was telling on the course of the whole affair.

Who is the real David Davis? He is a member of the Tory hard right-wing, and holds some pretty atrocious political views, which makes me feel uneasy whenever I see him praised by genuine civil libertarians.

David Davis is, amongst other things:

For the death penalty;
Very strongly for the Iraq War;
Against equal rights for LGBT people;
Against the ban on hunting. **

Interestingly, he has apparently "never voted" on parliamentary transparency – strange, given that Davis repeatedly made the point that he felt the 'sanctity' of parliament had been defiled by Labour's dodgy dealings with various groups to buy the 42 days vote. Marr countered by noting that parliament has always been the scene of dodgy dealing, which begs the question of why this particular issue at this particular time has led to this particular reaction from this particular Tory frontbencher.

Most significantly, Davis backed 28 days detention, and even admitted that and stood by it in the interview today. Apparently, banging people up without charge for 4 weeks is fine; 6 weeks, and its time for a principled resignation on the issue of, erm, banging people up without trial for too long.

After all, there are plenty of other disgusting initiatives by 'Labour' that Davis would be hard-pressed to claim are not worse even than this latest fiasco. The Iraq War has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, created misery for millions more, destabilised the Middle-East and was all based on lies. Why has Davis not resigned on this fact alone, or on the fact that the government refuses to allow an investigation into one of the most important issues of a generation?

Marr was most pressing on the fact that, in under two years, Davis would likely have become Home Secretary in a Tory government, with the opportunity to reverse this decision. Davis was evasive, huffing and puffing away the answer with tired rhetoric about "wanting to take a stand".

But this is where people are having the problem. He has, it seems, made a personal sacrifice – a pretty big one for a career politician. But has he really thrown away his chance at being on the Tory front bench, or has he taken a gamble that might elevate his standing even further? People have resigned for much worse things before and bounced back. And however much Cameron is angry at this decision, he knows he needs Davis (and the Tory rightists he represents) and Davis needs him. In fact, Cameron might be pleased with this turn of events, given how popular it seems to be for the wrong reasons, and how it allows the Tories to yet again out-flank 'Labour' to the left.

Thus the idea that this resignation is principled is ridiculous, but I think a lot of people are still unable to pin down his precise reasoning – meaning that they are quite happy to buy his argument. Of course, sometimes people miscalculate and make mistakes, and I imagine that whatever Davis really envisaged would happen is changing over time, and will change again.

I still think that this is going to damage the government more than it damages Davis and the Tories – at worse, it will damage both parties equally. But just look at the choice for Brown - 'Labour' has to decide between whether to run on the issue and surely lose in a safe Tory seat, or back out and be seen as cowardly.

That said, while New 'Labour' deserve to be vilified for their recent actions, particularly 42 days, that doesn't mean we should give them a bloody nose by helping the Tories and Davis's stunt.

As for the Lib Dems, they show their weakness yet again. Not standing against this Tory stunt is not principled - it is practical. I spoke to a Lib Dem insider who said that they would never run the campaign because of the trajectory of the party in local politics in the constituency. If the Lib Dems were a true party of civil liberties, they could have stood and rejected 28 days and all the other right-wing law and order measures that Davis has put forward as Shadow Home Secretary.

Let's be clear – Davis's resignation has brought up a lot of issues, including the wider government agenda. But let's not confuse the bringing up of issues with this being a move we should applaud. There are many ways to bring up issues, and I think the issue would have stayed around anyway. The only publicity being gained at the moment is for David Davis himself, as all the other arguments are rehashed to a public who are already aware and decided either way.

People are arguing that "it's the message, not the messenger". If so, then there are lots of personalities and stunts that "bring up issues". It isn't whether the issues are brought up, but how they are brought up that is key. Davis is going to go out and campaign on the fact that 6 weeks is somehow massively different than 4 weeks, so those arguing that 4 weeks are already way, way too much – particularly compared to other countries, even the United States – are going to have a hard time muscling in on the parameters of the debate.

There is talk of a grassroots coalition coming together of genuine anti-authoritarian activists to stand against Davis and reclaim the agenda. I am for this, but would be interested to see who is found to front the campaign. I fear that there is a highly tempting level of opportunism here – imagine the media exposure someone will get if they run in this now. If there is going to be a true rank-and-file movement running, they have to pick someone with a high profile and a low ego, preferably a local campaigner, who should only run if they are adequately resourced to make a splash with the real issues (because the costs of running and getting heavily defeated are perhaps higher than the rewards from the attention gained in doing so) - namely making it clear that, while Davis is right that there are too many CCTV cameras, ID cards are a sham and the country is becoming more authoritarian, we need a real movement for change in the country that opposes authoritarianism with radical community action, makes clear that 28 days is still to much, and opposes war, privatisation, racism and the other aspects of the authoritarian agenda.

Just remember – every time people cheer on Davis, they are cheering on a right-wing Tory and giving credence to his egotistical manoeuvres and his party's 'softer' image. People should enter this debate, but should go much, much further than Davis could ever go.  http://aleddilwynfisher.wordpress.com/

Such as,

Will you be supporting the civil right to privacy by backing NO2ID's campaign?
Will you be supporting the right to freedom of movement by backing No Borders?
and so on and so on and so on.

It might even help if NO2ID were to ask on behalf of No Borders, No Border to ask on behalf of Climate Camp and so on, in such a manner that now two groups reciprocate directly.

For someone with such seriously flawed ideas about liberty (and absolutely nothing to say about freedom) he would be had pressed to refuse to support people defending the liberties of other people.

A Sea Change - Four Years On

“Rewrite Half the Book or Have It Pulped”

There has been a clampdown on civil liberties since 2001. Under the guise of names like the Patriotism Act (US) and Terrorism Act (UK), these laws have allowed a degradation of some of the basic freedoms people, ironically, associate with the West. It is sad that the publishers of Stupid White Men advised Michael Moore to rewrite half the book or have it pulped: in fact, the ‘full’ version only appears in the UK. Still, the UK isn’t exempt from laws that, essentially, vilify asylum seekers. The terms ‘asylum seeker’ or ‘refugee’ – confused with illegal immigrants – have become synonymous with the term ‘terrorist’ in the language of governments and media. Whereas the diluting of free press may be traced back to before 9/11, with the establishment of Murdoch’s media empire, it is safe to assume that societal fear has been carefully spun to support government policy and sell sensationalist reporting. This is another negative aspect of our attempts to tackle terror – the terrorists are winning.

Like a Pendulum Throughout Time

Changing perceptions of what is Left or Right Wing have become apparent in the clampdown on civil liberties. People seemingly find an authoritarian, Right-Wing streak more acceptable. This is born out of fear of attacks – many want a more reactionary government focused on strict precautions against terror. Also, we find ourselves with a lack of respectable, Leftist alternatives. Ever since the Cold War, a prevailing and irrational fear of Communism – based on ignorance of its true ideological values and on its failure – has made the Left in general almost laughable. Capitalism and Machiavellian principles have seeped into society and affect people from childhood: stress on material values is a motif throughout the media and ever-intrusive advertising. Perceptions of Left and Right have swung like a pendulum throughout time. What is ‘universally’ Left or Right never varies, but the acceptability and perceptions of them are subject to change at different time periods and in different countries: for example, early 20th century Germans had a leaning towards authoritarian rule, whereas Britain had a tradition of parliamentary politics.

Things We Can Do

The term “war on terror” is decidedly inappropriate: you cannot answer indiscriminate terror with similarly indiscriminate war. The reaction to 9/11 has only furthered divisions and propagated hate of the West. Most painfully ironic, however, is the fact that terror has increased – and, if the recent Madrid bombings act as an example, we are witnessing a trend in direct attacks on the West.

There is certainly no relatively easy, short-term solution to the problem, but there are things that we can do. We must look at ourselves before we look at others. A change in Western foreign policy is required: significant change that will gradually improve relations. We can no longer support Israel, if it continues to break international law in its ‘dealings’ with the Palestinians; we can no longer wage unjustified, unnecessary wars that give terrorists focus and momentum; we cannot detain people indefinitely at camps like Guatanomo Bay; and we can longer force our ‘civilisation’ on countries that we deem ‘backward’, under the veil of playing Globocop. Simply put, we cannot espouse talk of a war on anything, whilst masquerading as protectors of the peace.

Rest of Article at  http://aleddilwynfisher.wordpress.com/2008/06/16/a-sea-change-four-years-on/
Also, Girl at UN, 1992  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Sb6RmRMbBY

Put the two together, and what have you got?
Revolution!

We need radical community action, everywhere.. and a new, joined up strategy to transform the state, from below, in the coming months and years..

Time for the Haltemprice convergence (and the contraction of Davis's vote)

Green Party reported to be fielding local candidate Shan Oakes:

 http://www.y-hgreenparty.org.uk/shan.htm