|
|
Vertaal:
              Controlerende „doelgemeenschappen“
Maandag, 3 November, 2008 Door Paul Donovan? | Het besluit van het Hof van Beroep dat de staat mensen onder controleorden (huisarrestatie) zonder kan plaatsen hen ooit te vertellen wat zij worden beschuldigd van heeft reusachtige implicaties voor burgerrechten. Een controleorde werkt door het individu te etiketteren rond de enkel en hem of haar te beperken tot een huis of vlak voor een vastgesteld aantal uren elke dag. Wanneer het individu het gebouw verlaat, hebben zij een vastgesteld gebied waarin zij zich kunnen bewegen. Het individu moet het etiketterende bedrijf bellen een paar keer elke dag van een specifieke telefoon en kan ook aan een politiepost moeten rapporteren. Het geval van Ceri Bullivant onderstreept de gevaren. Een moslim van Essex, Bullivant werd gezet op proef vóór vorige Kerstmis voor het breken van de termijnen van een controleorde. Zijn rechtskundig adviseur, Gareth Peirce, die met succes zijn acquittal wordt bepleit en zegt hij werd ontruimd nadat het te voorschijn kwam dat de basis voor de controleorde tip-off van was? een vriend van Ceri? s moeder die, na zwaar het drinken, de Werf van Schotland had getelefoneerd, die er niet in slaagde om de bezoeker ooit te contacteren om verdere informatie te vragen?. De manier waarin de anti-verschrikkingswetten voor doeleinden andere kunnen worden gebruikt die die voor die zij ogenschijnlijk werden bepaald wordt legende. Bijvoorbeeld, werden de anti-verschrikkingsbevoegdheden opgesteld tegen gepensioneerde Walter Wolfgang voor zijn protest op de conferentie van de Partij van de Arbeid van 2005. Hij werd zeer sterk uitgeworpen van het conferentiecentrum na het opmerken dat Jack Straw sprak? onzin?. De volgende publiciteit hielp wordt verkozen Wolfgang te worden die aan Arbeid? s Nationaal Uitvoerend Comité. Anderen vuil om van de controversiële wetgeving gevallen te zijn omvatten wapensprotesters die buiten Londen wordt gearresteerd? s de tentoonstellingscentrum van het Excel. Onlangs, werd het gebruikt als reden voor het bevriezen van de fondsen van Ijslandse banken aangezien zij in faillissement instortten. Dit alles is opzij van de 1.343 keer die 46 raden anti-verschrikkingswetten in het kader van de Verordening van het OnderzoeksAkte van Bevoegdheden voor inbreuken zoals schurk handel, voordeelfraude en asociaal gedrag hebben gebruikt. Om de wortel van deze vermindering van rechten van de mens te vinden, is het noodzakelijk aan pub van Birmingham het bombarderen van 1974 teruggaan. De grootste massamoord in Britse geschiedenis eiste tegelijkertijd het 21 leven en leidde tot het overgaan in wet van de eerste Preventie van het Akte van het Terrorisme. Dan Introduceerde de Minister van Binnenlandse Zaken Roy Jenkins PTA op 25 die November 1974 verklaart dat? de bevoegdheden? zijn draconisch. In combination, they are unprecedented in peacetime.? The Bill bringing in seven-day pre-charge detention passed in record time, clearing both Houses of Parliament by November 29. The PTA was rewritten in 1976, 1984 and again in 1989. However, it continued to be used as emergency ?temporary? powers that had to be renewed each year. The first person arrested under the Act was Paul Hill, who was one of the innocent men subsequently convicted of the Guildford pub bombings. He served 15 years in prison before being freed by the Court of Appeal. A succession of miscarriages of justice followed over the next two decades, with the whole Irish Roman Catholic community becoming regarded as generally suspect. It is mistake to think that the PTA was brought in solely to combat Irish terrorism. The real agenda has been the gradual erosion of human rights in the name of security. This could be clearly seen at the start of the new millennium when the Government brought forward the Terrorism Act 2000 ? at a time of peace in Northern Ireland and before the events of September 11. The Terrorism Act doubled the period of time allowed for pre-charge detention from seven days to 14. It also broadened out the definition of terrorism beyond Irish groups. Terrorism was also to include ?the threat? of ?serious damage to property? in ways ?designed to influence government? for a ?political cause? anywhere in the world. Notably, there was no pretence of the legislation being temporary and so in need of renewal each year. The next step was the British Government?s response to the attacks on New York and Washington on September 11. This included the reintroduction of internment with the Anti-Terror Crime and Security Act. This allowed for foreign nationals who cannot be deported or removed for fear of torture abroad to be detained indefinitely without trial on the basis of secret intelligence that neither they nor their lawyers could view. After September 11, 12 men were taken almost immediately into custody in Belmarsh prison. They were then detained for three years until the House of Lords ruling the ATCSA unlawful under the Human Rights Act. This led to the next Prevention of Terrorism Act in March 2005 which introduced the concept of control orders. Those who had been held in Belmarsh were put under control orders. They still were not told of what they were accused. Bruce Kent, who has visited several men put under control orders since 2005, describes the system as ?callously cruel?. The veteran peace campaigner recalls a man under the conditions of his control order in north London not being allowed to visit Finsbury Park, which was 100 yards away from where he was living. However, he was permitted to go Clissold Park, which was three quarters of a mile away. Says Kent: ?At the same time, in the two hours that he was allowed out at lunchtime, he had to report to a police station in the opposite direction,? He describes another case in which ?a man under a control order was checking into the police station every day as required. On one occasion, he was just grabbed by the police and sent to Long Lartin prison.? In other cases, suspects were allowed to go to the mosque, but parts of the bus route they wanted to take were ruled outside the area of movement. This meant it was impossible to get there in time for prayers. At the time that control orders were first imposed, there was also an attempt under the PTA 2005 to increase the pre-charge detention period from 14 days to 90. However, in one of those rare victories for civil liberties, this was rejected in favour of 28 days. This still constituted a doubling of the previous limit and a quadrupling of Roy Jenkins? previous ?draconian? measure. More recently, Gordon Brown Government?s attempted to demonstrate its anti-terror credentials with an introducing 42 days? detention with charge. This was overwhelmingly defeated in the House of Lords, but it is unlikely that the House of Commons will let the issue lie indefinitely. Bruce Kent?s view is: ?The problem is that, with control orders, we have had indefinite detention for years. There is a tendency among some campaigners to focus on headline-grabbing issues like 42-day pre-charge detention, while ignoring the iniquity of control orders. It?s a bit like ignoring the elephant in the room.? The project that began back in November 1974 has come a long way and it is still a work in progress. First, it was the Irish who were the suspect community; now it is the Muslims. In the future, it could be another group and ultimately anyone who dissents. As Gareth Peirce warns: ?The continuing experiment is dangerous and insidious in more than one way. It has become very clear that, when one challenge is overcome, the goalposts are moved and a new system comes in.? The Court of Appeal?s recent decision to uphold the right to impose control orders without the subject knowing what they are charged with is another dangerous step. Have Your Say: Policing “target communities” Please read our posting guidelines before posting. Alternatively you can discuss this report here. Related News
|
UK councils: no Latin lovers Last post by ZingPao @ 03:40 AM Go to Forum
| Latest Topics
Destroying free and fair elections - state by state Last post by Knight of the Word @ 03:16 AM In the Nano Technological Future, Sabrina is no Longer Merely Sabrina. Last post by Knight of the Word @ 03:04 AM History and high anxiety as Campaign '08 closes Last post by ZingPao @ 02:28 AM Fact Check: The myths that wouldn't go away Last post by ZingPao @ 02:15 AM Unruly children to be punished with 'innovative' foot massages Last post by ZingPao @ 02:11 AM 523 Architects, Engineers & Physicists question the official 911 story Euro tour Last post by Unregistered @ 01:55 AM Obama vs. McCain: Progressive Voter Guide to Drug Issues Last post by ZingPao @ 01:55 AM Supercomputer tackles climate change Last post by Unregistered @ 01:29 AM Masonic theory that put Knox in the dock Last post by Nostalgia @ 01:22 AM  Email This Page To A Friend Latest Headlines
More World News  Archive |
The views expressed in the RINF news wire and newsletter are the sole responsibility of the author (s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the webmaster. RINF.COM: Breaking News & Alternative Media is Copyleft - Copy & Distribute Freely. News Forum |
Loading ...
