I don’t get it. 42 days without charge seems like a very very long time.

The UN Declaration of Human Rights states:

Article 3:

    Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 6.

    Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.

    All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.

    Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.

    No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Surely to arrest someone you must have an idea that they have done something bad. To have an idea they have done something bad you would need some kind of proof. Why would it take 42 days to gather enough proof to charge someone. Isn’t there an offense of ‘suspicion of terrorism’? Do the police stop investigating at charge?

Perhaps that’s what needs changing rather than locking up people who MIGHT be guilty but against whom not enough proof has been gathered.

Innocent until proven guilty is the foundation of democracy. Eroding that foundation is a very dangerous thing to do.

I actually quite like Gordon Brown. His commitment to ending poverty, his work on reforming aid to Africa and his brand of social justice struck a chord with me. What happened to that Gordon?

3 thoughts on “42”

  1. Couldn’t have said it better myself. Actually I didn’t quite say it as good as you did in my own post regarding the Guantanamo ruling. But I’m glad to see I’m not the only one of the opinion that EVERYONE should be treated equally under the law.

  2. Ask yourselves who are pushing for 42 days (Brown, Smith, Sir Ian Blair) and the calibre of those who oppose the necessity for such prolonged pre-charge detention. The latter include experienced lawyers such as the head of the DPP, a previous Lord Chancellor and a previous Attorney General.

    Gordon Brown is not legally trained, neither is the Home Secretary. As to Sir Ian Blair it is entirely inappropriate for him to publicly debate policy. In any case he has previously shown poor judgement when making statements on high profile security matters such as the judicial execution of inadequately identified ‘terrorists’ (or is Sir Ian suggesting that 42 days would give his chaps time for a pee before letting the trigger men off the leash?

    Given the nature of the debate and the shoddy deals resorted to in order to force this draconian measure through in the face of reasoned opposition it is indeed fortunate that we still have the House of Lords to defend our constitutional rights.

Comments are closed.