Wednesday, July 27, 2005

al-Qaida Cherie

The US has their Hanoi (now Baghdad) Jane, we have our Carolyn Parrish -- but they have nothing on Cherie Blair, wife of British PM Tony.

Cherie Blair says that courts have to "act as guardians of the weakest, poorest and most marginalised members of society against the hurly-burly of majoritarian politics". This statement, this sentiment, in and of itself is not a bad thing -- but when this kind of statement is made with terrorism as a backdrop, it implies that the government has not shown due diligence when drafting, implementing and acting upon legislation. It is the sort of cautionary statement made when a society impinges on the rights of its citizens for no other reason than because it can.
Cherie made clear that judges must resist pressure to convict on the proposed new laws -- inciting or glorifying terrorism -- in order to preserve British civil liberties. "The important task of reviewing executive action against the benchmark of human rights. . . In our troubled times where terrorism, division and suspicion of others are the order of the day, this role for judges is perhaps more vital than ever before."

While Cherie's assertions are perfectly reasonable when a country is not at war, or there is no threat of imminent attack from within, these comments were made yesterday in Malaysia. All the while her husband is on the homefront fighting for stronger powers to detain, convict and deport the terrorist suspects in their midst.

So far, Britain has tried 20 cases with people charged under their terrorism laws. Nineteen of those cases have been unsuccessful because judges are so reluctant to convict. This has resulted in international condemnation of Britain, with Tony Blair trying to defend against critics who call the nation's capital 'Londonistan' because of its reputation as Europe's centre of Islamic extremism.

Tony Blair says when trying to remove suspected terrorists the government has been prevented by judges .

"We have been trying to get rid of these people," he said at his monthly press conference. "Now I am afraid occasionally what has happened is we have tried to get rid of them, and we have been blocked."
When asked how he was blocked, he said only: "You can go back over the court cases and read them."


How does that square with what Cherie is saying?

Jane Fonda spoke for Jane Fonda. Carolyn Parrish speaks for herself and her constituents. Who does Cherie Blair speak for? I realise the woman is a 'respected human rights lawyer' -- but beyond her last name -- what else about her compels anyone to listen?

The Scotsman (linked in title) has the article, at the end of which is this interesting little piece:

DISCORD at DOWNING STREET

She says
An independent judiciary has the important task of executive action against the benchmark of human rights
He says
The independence of the judiciary is a principle of our democracy, but I hope that recent events have created a situation where people understand that it is important that we do protect ourselves

She says
It is all too easy for us to respond to such terror in a way which undermines our commitment to our most deeply held values and convictions
He says
I think it perfectly reasonable for us in circumstances of great difficulty to have a greater detention, in order that there can be the interrogation of people who are suspected of doing this

She says
Courts have to act as guardians of the weakest, poorest and most marginalised members of society against the hurly-burly of majoritarian politics
He says
I think when the main political parties present a united front then you send an important signal to the terrorists of our strength, our determination, our unity to defeat them

She says
As long as young people feel they have got no hope but to blow themselves up, you are never going to make progress - Speaking about a suicide attack in Israel where a Palestinian bomber killed 40 people -- JUNE 2002
He says
It is just a lie when they say that people have got no option but to engage in terrorism. They do have an option

Blair is publically defending his wife's comments again -- as I suppose he must to keep peace in the house -- but when you read the Scotsman article, you'll see where he directly contradicts what she's said.
Their dinnertable conversation must be electric.

canadianna

21 comments:

Walsh Writes said...

Good analysis of a difficult subject.

Frankly, the real problem is not detaining or holding or bringing someone to justice...

it is the ability to detain and imprison people without CHARGE, that concerns me.

I have seen it in this country and it causes me great concern.

Justthinkin said...

So the next time some nut case shoves a bomb up her ass,at least she can speak of tolerance...and Brian...what is this without charge?

Canadianna said...

In Britain, they can detain people without charge for 14 days. They want to up that to 90 days to allow for more time to investigate.
There has to be a balance, but too often in Western culture our attempts to be fair tip the balance to benefit the criminals (that's not just terrorists, all criminals).
I realise these protections are for all of us in the unfortunate event we are unjustly accused, but in a world where people have many different identities, can easily go underground, have access to networks to smuggle them in and out of the country -- we have to make sure the hands of the police aren't tied.
There does have to be balance and I'm not comfortable with things like Gitmo because of the indefinite nature of the detention. That said, extending the timeline for holding people without charges doesn't seem out of line based on what's going on over there.

Canadianna said...

Myrddin Wyllt-- I'm only saying that the proposed changes to the law are not extreme or unjustified. The British government hasn't proposed extending the time frame beyond 90 days, so I'm not addressing that.
90 days seems reasonable for now, simply because if they have not been able to build their case after three months, it's questionable that they ever will. Should they be in the midst of an investigation, with enough information to show that a longer detainment would enable them to bring charges, sure they should be allowed to apply for an extention, but right now, the only real issue is whether detention will be allowed beyond the current 15 days.
Indefinite incarceration without charge is an abuse of power. The US might feel justified in doing it a Gitmo, and they have let some of the detainees go, but they would better serve their own cause if there was more public scrutiny into what they have on each of these guys, and if they were able to bring charges.

Paul said...

The solution to all of this may be to make it a crime to associate with certian entities. I know it sounds incredibly draconian, and counter-democratic, but if terrorism keep encroaching on our society, we may have to look at rolling some of our hard earned rights.

In essence, any person caught associating with certian banned organizations, could get time. Even if sentences were light, say 2 or 3 years, it would aughorities a way of holding these scum until more detailed investigations could be done.

Canadianna said...

Myrddin Wyllt -- I really hadn't thought of it that way. Although I wouldn't go so far as Debris Trail has, I think maybe a law that would deny entry, deport or imprison anyone who had participated in terrorist training camps in foreign countries. They seem to be able to establish those sorts of things -- so they're proveable.
The whole nature of Islamic radicalism turns our values and democracy on its head -- which they exploit very well.

Mike said...

I know it sounds incredibly draconian, and counter-democratic, but if terrorism keep encroaching on our society, we may have to look at rolling some of our hard earned rights.

And the goose stepping begins. Grand.

Candace said...

It would be interesting to sit at that dinner table, wouldn't it? I think debris has a good point, and you're addition to it (get punted or denied entry for attending terrorist training camps) would be an excellent place to start.

Mike - get your head out of your a$$ - all sorts of rights were suspended during WWII. This is a war, not a tea party.

Paul said...

Mike: "And the goose stepping begins. Grand."

The reality is Mike, that people are targeted in Canada for association with groups at this time. The problem is that without clearer laws, the targeting is done politically. For instance, we have no problem going after neo-nazis. They are harrassed, jailed, and in the case of Zundel, deported for nothing more than is being taught weekly in Mosques and in Muslim schools. This morning on talk radio in Saskatoon a Muslim Proffessor espoused views that came dangerously close to "fomenting hate".

You talk about goose stepping, I find that insulting because the reality is that some organizations are already banned in Canada. How about "criminal organization", how about legislation making it illegal to belong to a criminal organization?

If an organization, say a charity fronting as a "jihad" camp donar, can function openly and freely, then we are leaving our society wide open. I suggest that organizations of this sort be outlawed. We send troops to Afghanistan on one hand, yet allow fundraising for those attempting to kill them on the other. And, there is no mechanism to go after those involved in those organizations here in Canada.

"Goose Stepping!" Now that's an overgeneralized reaction.

Anonymous said...

Blair's never had a problem holding two or how many different views you can think of, at once.

He is truly "A Man for All Seasons".

Unknown said...

This blog entry is very much appreciated, Canadianna. You've earned your Place in the blogospheres by consistently superiour work, I say with some happy envy. Strength and courage!

Nicol DuMoulin said...

Hmmmm,

Tony and Cherie...they certainly do seem more and more like an odd couple.

I am leaving to visit Britain for my honeymoon in three weeks. It will be interesting to see the opinion I get about this couple from my new inlaws...who are staunch Tories/Thatcherites (not that there's anything wrong with that).

I will also be meeting a man who was in parliament during the time of Thatcher who also knows Clinton, Bush Sr. and knew Reagan. I look forward the stories.

All the best.

Canadianna said...

Thank you so much Owlb -- why haven't you been blogging lately???
Nicol - congratulations and have a safe and happy honeymoon and marriage! I know you'll share some of those stories when you get back and I look forward to hearing.

Candace said...

excellent progress being made in UK - it looks like they've got all four from last week...

49erDweet said...

Possiblly "tradition" is becoming an achilles heel to the Brits. They are still supporting the "nicee nicees" of 18th Century jurisprudence while attempting to deal with anarchists in the 21st.

Per H.G. Wells, Adapt or perish, now as ever, is nature's inexorable imperative." Holds true for nation-states, too.

john_m_burt said...

1) Husbands and wives disagree all the time. Big deal.

2) Majoritarian is a real word. Look it up.

3) I would like to register my objection to the term "Gitmo". Torture camps and gulags should not be given cutesy nicknames. Would you refer to Bergen-Belsen as "Bergie", or to Lubyanka as "the Loob"?

Canadianna said...

Yes, yes , John. Husbands and wives disagree all the time. Only, most husbands are not the PM of Britain, and most wives are not out in public undermining his decisions with regard to national security.

As for 'Gitmo' -- even intimating that it is the same as a concentration camp like Bergen-Belsen or a chamber of horrors like the gulags displays an ignorance beyond that of not knowing 'majoritarian' is a word.
I'm not comfortable with Guantanamo Bay, but when you minimize the atrocities that occured in Nazi Germany and in Soviet Russia by saying that what happens at 'Gitmo' is analogous, instead of being a valid point of debate relevant to the post, your argument becomes histrionic.

Lester Price said...

New address. If you'd like to relink to me I'd like it very much.

www.imnotparanoid.blogspot.com

Canadianna said...

Thanks Ron, I've been trying to get to your page and I thought you just abandoned us. I'll change the link right now.
Cheers.

yochanan said...

the last time there was a terrorist in canada the gov't did react in a strong manner. How many remember THE WAR MEASURES ACT after the FLQ activities in 1970. this activities one murder and some blown up mail boxes. There were Canadian forces troops on every street corner in Quebec city.

When Canadian liberals say Americans over reacted to sept 11 they seem to have had amnesia to there own history.

Anonymous said...

This is very interesting site... » »