This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/03/human-rights-act-conservatives-editorial
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| Secret courts: The Liberal Democrats' duty | Secret courts: The Liberal Democrats' duty |
| (7 months later) | |
| The Sunday papers revealed the Conservative response to humiliation in Eastleigh: the nasty party is back. Chris Grayling and Theresa May traded rival schemes to rip up Churchill's civilising legacy, the European convention. The justice secretary wants to knock entitlements to life, liberty and dignity out of English law by repealing the Human Rights Act; the home secretary would rather wind the clock back further and pull out of the European arrangements that have safeguarded the same basic rights since the Churchill era. | The Sunday papers revealed the Conservative response to humiliation in Eastleigh: the nasty party is back. Chris Grayling and Theresa May traded rival schemes to rip up Churchill's civilising legacy, the European convention. The justice secretary wants to knock entitlements to life, liberty and dignity out of English law by repealing the Human Rights Act; the home secretary would rather wind the clock back further and pull out of the European arrangements that have safeguarded the same basic rights since the Churchill era. |
| It is a frightening foretaste of the Tory manifesto and the assault on liberty that could follow an outright Conservative win in 2015, and yet even now – under a coalition with avowed liberals – the bartering away of ancient freedoms is picking up pace, as we will see with today's crunch Commons votes on plans to plunge public courtrooms into darkness. If the Liberal Democrats are a party of serious purpose, they cannot sit at desks in Whitehall and acquiesce in such things, parking civil liberties until the election campaign. Instead, they need to make a stand – now. | It is a frightening foretaste of the Tory manifesto and the assault on liberty that could follow an outright Conservative win in 2015, and yet even now – under a coalition with avowed liberals – the bartering away of ancient freedoms is picking up pace, as we will see with today's crunch Commons votes on plans to plunge public courtrooms into darkness. If the Liberal Democrats are a party of serious purpose, they cannot sit at desks in Whitehall and acquiesce in such things, parking civil liberties until the election campaign. Instead, they need to make a stand – now. |
| The justice and security bill was cooked up in rage and embarrassment after a run of cases revealed, or threatened to reveal, UK collusion in torture and wrongdoing. There was Binyam Mohamed, the British resident who British judges ruled ended up being tortured in a Moroccan jail with the connivance of British intelligence, and then a string of others whom ministers preferred to pay off and shut up before the facts could emerge. Rather than asking what corruption of culture had embroiled a once-decent state in such indecent things, the government's instinctive response was to ask the judges to hear the arguments in secret. When the supreme court said no in ringing terms – Lord Hope warning secrecy "cut across absolutely fundamental principles, such as the right to be confronted by one's accusers and the right to know the reasons for the outcome" – ministers again refused to stop and rethink, but instead resolved to rewrite the law. | The justice and security bill was cooked up in rage and embarrassment after a run of cases revealed, or threatened to reveal, UK collusion in torture and wrongdoing. There was Binyam Mohamed, the British resident who British judges ruled ended up being tortured in a Moroccan jail with the connivance of British intelligence, and then a string of others whom ministers preferred to pay off and shut up before the facts could emerge. Rather than asking what corruption of culture had embroiled a once-decent state in such indecent things, the government's instinctive response was to ask the judges to hear the arguments in secret. When the supreme court said no in ringing terms – Lord Hope warning secrecy "cut across absolutely fundamental principles, such as the right to be confronted by one's accusers and the right to know the reasons for the outcome" – ministers again refused to stop and rethink, but instead resolved to rewrite the law. |
| So much for the genesis, which one might think would be enough to set every liberal heart against the legislation; twists and turns have created confusion since. The initial proposal for ministers to trigger secrecy by diktat fell away, but the outrageous idea of the executive calling the shots in court without reference to a judge was surely only ever included to create an obvious concession. The Lords imposed more serious changes. First, to specify that secret courts were a last resort, in cases where the existing public interest immunity rules – which allow judges to run a black marker over evidence, to keep sensitive details like agents' names secret – were not practicable. Second, to free judges to balance the public interest in intelligence remaining secret, against the interest that the public sometimes has in finding out that the state which operates on its behalf is involved in terrible things. | So much for the genesis, which one might think would be enough to set every liberal heart against the legislation; twists and turns have created confusion since. The initial proposal for ministers to trigger secrecy by diktat fell away, but the outrageous idea of the executive calling the shots in court without reference to a judge was surely only ever included to create an obvious concession. The Lords imposed more serious changes. First, to specify that secret courts were a last resort, in cases where the existing public interest immunity rules – which allow judges to run a black marker over evidence, to keep sensitive details like agents' names secret – were not practicable. Second, to free judges to balance the public interest in intelligence remaining secret, against the interest that the public sometimes has in finding out that the state which operates on its behalf is involved in terrible things. |
| Now, with the bill back in the Commons, Ken Clarke is trying to reverse the substance of both, under the cover of promises about future reviews and weasel words about safeguarding "the fair and effective administration of justice". Given a fuzzy remit of this sort in the context of national security, all experience suggests judges will feel compelled to bend the knee to the authorities' claims to know something the rest of us don't. | Now, with the bill back in the Commons, Ken Clarke is trying to reverse the substance of both, under the cover of promises about future reviews and weasel words about safeguarding "the fair and effective administration of justice". Given a fuzzy remit of this sort in the context of national security, all experience suggests judges will feel compelled to bend the knee to the authorities' claims to know something the rest of us don't. |
| The UN rapporteur on torture shakes his head in despair, but in place of any real argument Mr Clarke confects the claim that the financial settlements that flow from open justice end up in terrorist pockets. Lib Dem MPs must now decide what to do. In the autumn, activists voted emphatically to throw out the whole of part 2 of this bill, which remains by far the best course, although it may be tricky to accomplish this, not least because Labour is so slippery on these questions. But the very least that now needs to be done to respect the settled will of the party is to reinstate the amendments Mr Clarke seeks to reverse. Should they shrink from it, the Lib Dems will reveal that they are neither liberal nor democratic. | The UN rapporteur on torture shakes his head in despair, but in place of any real argument Mr Clarke confects the claim that the financial settlements that flow from open justice end up in terrorist pockets. Lib Dem MPs must now decide what to do. In the autumn, activists voted emphatically to throw out the whole of part 2 of this bill, which remains by far the best course, although it may be tricky to accomplish this, not least because Labour is so slippery on these questions. But the very least that now needs to be done to respect the settled will of the party is to reinstate the amendments Mr Clarke seeks to reverse. Should they shrink from it, the Lib Dems will reveal that they are neither liberal nor democratic. |
| Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. |