The main reason why I oppose 42 days is not because I'm worried about the civil liberties of some ranting medieval bigot who wants me dead. Though I do opposes arbitary detention of such people, I can't pretend that I'll ever be steamed up about it and I can see some, though not on balance convincing, justification for increasing detention times to deal with them.

No, the reason I oppose 42 days is because I know that 10 years down the line it will be start to be used to incarcerate those who fail to adhere sufficiently to the Bruschetta agenda. Legislation introduced to combat terrorism has already been used to stop a Likud MK from entering Britain for example. Soon enough this sort of thing will be used in a way similar to what we are currently witnessing in Canada.

When someone is languishing in jail for handing out bibles in a Muslim area or preaching against gay marriage, I know, you know and everyone else knows that Dianne Abbot will be absolutely ecstatic about it. The SOLE reason she opposes this legislation is because in the immediate term it will be used against people she symapthises with (to re-iterate, medieval bigots who want me, though possibly not you, dead.)

Why exactly Guy feels it is necessary to subject Samizdata readers to his periodic "Look another piece of left-wing trash that I love" series is quite beyond me.

Oh don't be a silly bumhole Gabriel. You've missed the point. It's nothing to do with the civil liberties of bigots. The point of habeas corpus is it sets in stone the principle that if the state wants to arrest someone, it has to have a reason to do so, i.e. it must have evidence with which to charge them. Any period before charge only needs to be sufficient to organise that evidence which they already have, sufficient to justify putting them on remand. It's not a demand that there be sufficient evidence to convict; that's what a trial is for. Merely that Plod actually has some reason for arresting a person other than not liking the hat they're wearing or something.

Once that period extends beyond a couple of days, you're admitting as a society that you're happy for Plod to go fishing in the hope of finding some evidence. That's what the problem is.

It's nothing to do with "civil liberties". It's about the basic principles of the Common Law system, which are being, one by one, abolished in this septic isle.

The 'left' used to be a hotbed of civil liberties defense. I shifted to Libertarian when the 'left' left me behind by becoming what I used to call 'right'.

I commend Diane for her statement and encourage her to talk with us and look for more common ground in defense of liberty.

Without allies we will lose all. And sometimes, through alliance, people come to see more clearly what the other really wants. Perhaps Diane will one day find herself more comfortable with the likes of us... if we let her.

Gabriel is making a seperate valid point about the future use of this and other anti-civil liberties legislation, even accepting Ian B's point about habeas corpus.

Every time some repressive piece of "anti-terror" legislation is enacted, Joe public thinks that it is a perfectly reasonable measure for dealing with the Beards.

Unfortunately, we know otherwise; Later or sooner it will be used against groups that the progressives and/or their allies dislike. That is bad enough.

What is most scary about all this legislation is that in due course it will be some EU figure lifting the phone to instruct our police to use this stuff against Eurosceptics, Christians, libertarians or whoever else is not towing the line, is thinking for themselves or is merely politically inconvenient. (For example, critics of friendly tyrannies - Witness the permitted behaviour of the Chinese goons during the torch relay in London or the proscribing of the Iranian exile group.)

What makes us free is what makes us safe, and what makes us safe is what will make us free.

It's good to see that there are still some people in the world who are not too dense to appreciate the value of not living one's life at the barrel of a statist gun.

It's good to see that there are still some people in the world who are not too dense to appreciate the value of not living one's life at the barrel of a statist gun.

Diane Abbott is a socialist. That she wants a less intrusive procedure for detaining people prior to being charged doesn't mean that she favours reducing the scope of the crimes with which they can be charged so as to only represent those which aggress against others. She voted, as an illustration, in favour of criminalising religious and racial 'hate speech.'

Ian B:

Once that period extends beyond a couple of days, you're admitting as a society that you're happy for Plod to go fishing in the hope of finding some evidence. That's what the problem is.

What ought to be the maximum period of holding someone without charge? It seems entirely arbitrary to decide that "a couple of days" suffices, and once you delimit the number of days, I can't see any logical reason why one additional or one fewer day would either be insufficient or an egregious violation of liberty.

Ironic that a day after our government votes to reduce our freedoms in the UK, the US Supreme Court rules(Link) to grant non-US suspects held at Guantanamo Bay rights under the US Constitution; permitting them to challenge their detention in civilian courts.

And let me be the first to hope you have a happy African-American Friday the thirteenth!
The most interesting thing about Obama are his given names. He was programmed for politics! I think his middle name is 'For', so his whole name is 'Barrack For Obama'. Poor kid, with that kind of programming, couldn't HELP being President! (I'll bet he secretly dreams of being a lumberjack!)

Ian B, well said. Gabriel, whether you care or not for certain people is besides the point. If you shrug your shoulders because certain people are getting locked up for weeks without trial, then that suggests to me that you are highly selective in your application of principle.

Sometimes wisdom comes from the mouths of the insincere, or from those who differ from us on other issues. So what? If the meme of liberty under the rule of law spreads, let it spread.

If that post hadn't come from Fatty Abbott I would applaud it, coming from her, I share Gabriel's suspicions. Even Fatty Vaz has been caught saying pretty sensible things over the past couple of years, but with his track record...

"What ought to be the maximum period of holding someone without charge?"

Overnight would be about right, or 24 hours if you must.

Anything beyond that is tyranny.

If you doubt her motives, fine, but that doesn't invalidate what she said. The message - What makes us free is what makes us safe, and what makes us safe is what will make us free. - is surely independent of the messenger.

...as for her weight - how does that affect either her message or its truth? Snotty nosed ad hominem attacks like that damage your case - not hers.