Eroding justice in the UK

From No Right Turn - New Zealand's liberal blog:

Two years ago, the British government introduced a system of control orders, allowing them to restrict the freedom of movement, speech or association of suspected terrorists, or even place them under house arrest, all with the flick of a minister's pen. One of the arguments against this move was that it circumvented the vital protections of independent review before a judge and jury.  Another was that this erosion of fundamental human rights would not long be restricted to suspected terrorists, but would inevitably be extended into other parts of the criminal justice system.  Sadly, it seems these fears are about to be realised.

The government's new Serious Crime Bill includes a control order-style system for suspected criminals, allowing a court to restrict the movements, business, associations, or access to banking services or the internet of anyone found to be acting in a way which helps or is likely to help a serious crime.  As a civil order, the standard of proof would be a "balance of probabilities" rather than the criminal "beyond reasonable doubt" - meaning that people could find their liberties significantly restricted on the grounds that they are "probably" criminals.

This is simply monstrous.  The orders would effectively impose criminal sanctions on a civil standard of proof, and it is difficult to see them as anything other than an attempt by a party desperate to be seen to be "doing something" to circumvent the safeguards built into the criminal justice system.  But as I have said before, those safeguards exist for very good reason: to prevent injustice. They help keep the innocent out of jail, and that the police do their job and thoroughly investigate crimes rather than just pinning them on the first likely suspect they come across. Removing them opens the door to innocent people incorrectly suspected of criminal activity losing their liberty, their jobs, and even their lives.  And it opens the door to lazy policing and gross miscarriages of justice.

In a free and democratic society, restrictions on an individual's liberty must meet the highest standards of evidence.  This proposal does not.  it is unjust, unsafe, and should not proceed.

•  It's Unfortunate

  It looks as though the British government (which is predominantly Labour, the so-call "left wing" of politics) is doing its damnedest to follow Bush down the road to Facism. Apparently, the British are forgetting what it cost to stop Facism in Europe last time! The Labour party is proving that it is about as left-wing as the Democrats in America, i.e., not a sausage...

  by Spoc42 on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 02:38:48 AM PDT

•  About time for that written constitution, no?

  by Geekesque on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 02:43:58 AM PDT

•  Labour isn't working, as the Tories used to say.

  Twenty-four years ago, it was Thatcherite spin, but today that slogan is deeply, disgracefully accurate. New Labour is an insult to the party's roots and an oozing canker on the face of the Socialist International. One can only hope that Blair's departure will signal some kind of leftward turn and a repudiation of Blairite scaremongering.

  On a somewhat related note, are there others who would love to see Scotland secure full independence in the next year? It will depend greatly on how the referendum is worded, but it would be absolutely priceless if Gordon Brown suddenly became a foreigner and was thereby deprived of the office he so richly doesn't deserve. Look to Scotland to set the example. The Scots are refreshingly left-wing, not only on economic issues, but on foreign policy and personal liberties. For their sake, I want to see them get out from under a UK that seems to be trending dangerously to the right.

  As for the UK itself, my recommendation is a republic and everything that comes with it, including a codified constitution and maybe even a non-WASP head of state (hell, we could use one of those over here).

  by bhumiya on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 05:49:18 AM PDT

•  Liberalism in New Zealand = Progressive?

  just wondering.

  by Nulwee on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 06:49:11 AM PDT

  •  Liberalism in New Zealand = Progressive?

    Very much so.  Oh, we have US-style classical liberals, who combine economic freedom with social conservativism and oppose flag burning, free speech and gay rights (the only freedom they care about is the freedom of the rich not to pay taxes), but here liberalism generally means the social rather than economic aspect, and is grounded in the strong kiwi belief in fairness and egalitarianism. This means support for the welfare state, and public health and education systems.

    by IdiotSavant on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 01:38:28 PM PDT