Merrick
|
Anti-terror laws are unlawful
Jan 13, 2010, 11:40
|
It's been a good day for the reining in of police intimidation of activists.
The European Court of Human Rights has disagreed with all the British courts and ruled that the Terrorism Act 2000's stop and search powers are illegal.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6975087/Stop-and-search-under-terror-laws-unlawful-Europe-rules.html
The power has routinely been used against climate and peace protesters.
There's a good analysis piece by (of all people) the home affairs editor of the Daily Mail
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1242787/Stop-search-officers-blame.html
This comes on the same day that Kent police admit that their stop and search of people going to and from the Climate Camp in 2008 was illegal.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/12/kingsnorth-stop-search-boys-illegal
They're now bricking it and wriggling about trying to find a way to avoid admitting all those searches were illegal as it would mean a colossal payout of damages.
|
Loopy Lumbago
|
Re: Anti-terror laws are unlawful
Jan 13, 2010, 12:02
|
|
Very good news! And I hope the payouts will be colossal. Money speaks a language they're capable of understanding.
|
pooley
|
Re: Anti-terror laws are unlawful
Jan 13, 2010, 12:03
|
|
Merrick wrote:
agreed. it is a good day. I have no problem with police stopping anyone as long as they have a valid and lawful reason to do so. IE - If they had information someone has illegal substance, bomb, going equiped - a protester with a brick meant for a bank window.
But they have to be answerable for every person they stop, and when innocent people are stopped (as will always happen) be able to prove they had a valid reason to stop them and not hide behind dodgy laws
|
FourWinds
|
Re: Anti-terror laws are unlawful
Jan 13, 2010, 22:48
|
|
Loopy Lumbago wrote: And I hope the payouts will be colossal.
So do I, but I don't pay taxes in the UK any more, so it won't be me that's paying them.
|
Loopy Lumbago
|
Re: Anti-terror laws are unlawful
Jan 14, 2010, 11:16
|
Well, that's a point I didn't see.
I hereby withdraw my rather hastily made statement. I wouldn't want any taxpayer in the UK or anywhere else to get hurt. ;o)
|
Merrick
|
Re: Anti-terror laws are unlawful
Jan 14, 2010, 11:19
|
|
pooley wrote: I have no problem with police stopping anyone as long as they have a valid and lawful reason to do so.
The thing is that they often have a a lawful reason thanks to the 'dodgy laws' you mention. And, as far as the judicial system's concerned, 'lawful' and 'valid' are synonymous.
This time we've been saved by the European Convention on Human Rights and the tenacity of those who took it all the way to europe. There are dozens of other laws that are routinely used to harass people of colour or restrict peaceful protest.
I'm struggling to think of a law made in the last 20 years designed to protect us from terrorism and anti-social behaviour that hasn't been used in that way. The Protection From Harassment Act - supposedly to defend vulnerable women against stalker ex partners - is most commonly used to get injunctions to defend corporations from peaceful protests. I've seen people who pulled up GM crops convicted under the Public Order Act for 'disorderly or threatening behaviour', a section aimed at pissed up tossers putting traffic cones on their heads.
And as for the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act, see what Monbiot has to say about it
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/02/22/protest-as-harassment/
Agreed that the reining in of the Terrorism Act is a great thing, but the state still has a vast armoury left.
|
Five
|
Re: Anti-terror laws are unlawful
Jan 23, 2010, 03:24
|
|
sorta nasty in USA today ... supreme court rules OK for unlimited corporate spending on elections ... I am nervous
|
handofdave
|
Re: Anti-terror laws are unlawful
Jan 23, 2010, 04:25
|
|
Five wrote: sorta nasty in USA today ... supreme court rules OK for unlimited corporate spending on elections ... I am nervous
Indeed. The next protection to come down will be the law preventing corporations from giving as much as they want directly to the candidates, which would drag us back to the kind of blatant graft that this country hasn't seen since the 20s.
If you work for someone else who goes against your politics, watch out. The litmus testing is going to get worse. And with unemployment as bad as it is people will compromise their willingness to speak out in fear of ending up out of work.
I'm more and more believing that Obama's presidency was a calculation, at least in part, on the part of the Republicans. Knowing that the US public at large has the memory of a gnat, they knew that allowing Obama to be the patsy for the economy they wrecked would work in their favor in the following elections. Already, a Republican has taken a seat away from Massachusetts, a seat that was filled by Ted Kennedy for DECADES.
|
keith a
|
Re: Anti-terror laws are unlawful
Jan 23, 2010, 08:28
|
|
Merrick wrote:
The Protection From Harassment Act - supposedly to defend vulnerable women against stalker ex partners - is most commonly used to get injunctions to defend corporations from peaceful protests.
Would you like to back that up with figures?
|
PMM
|
Re: Anti-terror laws are unlawful
Jan 23, 2010, 10:37
|
No figures, but this item from today's news is relevent.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8476318.stm
|
