babble: Lords not a-leapin' for Blair

FAQ | Forum Home

»	babble » current events » international news and politics » Lords not a-leapin' for Blair

Email this thread to someone!

Author

Topic: Lords not a-leapin' for Blair

James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341

posted 07 March 2005 05:41 PM

Upper house curbs UK terror law

SPECIAL REPORT

LONDON, England (Reuters) -- Britain's House of Lords voted on Monday to force changes on Prime Minister Tony Blair's controversial anti-terror laws, creating a stand-off between the government and parliament's unelected upper chamber.

Blair backed down once last week, conceding that any "control order" to place a terror suspect under house arrest would require the approval of a judge. Until then, he had insisted that power should rest with ministers alone.

But the Lords voted by 249 to 119 on Monday that all such orders -- ranging from electronic tagging to curfews and freedom of association -- should go before a judge.

They also demanded a higher standard of proof before any restrictions of movement could be imposed.

"They have to be better than the awfulness of what is in this bill," Helena Kennedy, a senior lawyer and peer in Blair's Labour party, said of the amendments.

From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004 | IP: Logged

Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 08 March 2005 01:20 AM

I can't believe that the House of Lords has turned into the voice of reason in this parliament. Are we on Bizarro Earth?

From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001 | IP: Logged

kuri
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4202

posted 08 March 2005 04:19 AM

Yey! That was a horrible piece of legislation, even with the ammendments. I don't think it's *too* bizarro that an unelected institution is protecting democratic freedoms. The courts do that too. Also the Lords have to legitimize their existence. This goes some way towards doing that, IMHO.

From: an employer more progressive than rabble.ca | Registered: Jun 2003 | IP: Logged

Seiltänzer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8259

posted 08 March 2005 05:23 AM

The difficult thing about this situation is that it leaves those imprisoned in Belmarsh in somewhat of a limbo. The legislation keeping them in prison runs out in a week or so, but what will happen? If no new legislation is in place will they be kept behind bars or released?

From: UK (né Toronto) | Registered: Feb 2005 | IP: Logged

skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 08 March 2005 08:07 AM

I don't understand why the Belmarsh prisoners are still there. I thought that the decision of the Law Lords a few months ago was pretty categorical: that their detention is unlawful. How can Tony continue to get away with this?

From: gone | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

kuri
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4202

posted 08 March 2005 08:16 AM

If I understand correctly, the Lords' decisions are not legally binding, there being no constitution and parliament being supreme and all. If you're asking about how he can get away with it politically, I have no idea. I never cease to be amazed by complancy of the general public (and not just in the UK).

I had actually thought that some or all of them were moved to house arrest after the first Lords decision came down. I can't find a reference for that now, I must have misheard.

From: an employer more progressive than rabble.ca | Registered: Jun 2003 | IP: Logged

skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 08 March 2005 08:31 AM

Well, but the Law Lords are a different kettle of fish from the Lords per se. The Lords are just the upper house, like our Senate, but the Law Lords are an actual court, yes?

I mean, short of the queen and maybe her Privy Council, I thought that the Law Lords were like our Supremes.

From: gone | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

kuri
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4202

posted 08 March 2005 08:33 AM

Yeah, but if IIRC the Law Lords still don't have to be followed in the same way our Supremes are because Parliament is supreme. I'll verify though.

[ 08 March 2005: Message edited by: dokidoki ]

From: an employer more progressive than rabble.ca | Registered: Jun 2003 | IP: Logged

kuri
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4202

posted 08 March 2005 08:38 AM

quote:
The Lords cannot exercise judicial review over, or in any way strike down Acts of Parliament under the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty. In common with other courts in the European Union, however, they may refer points involving European Union law to the European Court of Justice. The Lords may also declare a law inconsistent with the European Convention on Human Rights pursuant to section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Whilst this power is shared with the Court of Appeal and the High Court, such declarations are considered so important that the question will almost inevitably be determined in the House of Lords on appeal. However, the challenged law in question is not automatically struck down; it remains up to Parliament to amend the law.

From wikipedia

Also, this could have been just bluster on the part of New Labour, but when the Law Lords' decision came down I remember Blair saying that as a supreme parliament, they could just ignore it for as long as they felt. Politically they can't, but he felt it necessary to point out that legally he felt they could.

From: an employer more progressive than rabble.ca | Registered: Jun 2003 | IP: Logged

skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 08 March 2005 08:42 AM

Oh, dear. I didn't know that.

Well, that certainly does not conform to skdadl's ideal configuration for democracy, so we'll have to see about changing it.

From: gone | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

kuri
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4202

posted 09 March 2005 06:36 PM

Update.

And, while it doesn't say this in the text, the video link next to the story says that if this bill isn't resolved the Belmarch detainees "must walk free by Friday." I don't yet understand why, but I'm happy for them.

Labour is particularly resisting the idea of an 8-month sunset clause that's in the Lords' ammendment. That's probably the best part of their ammendment because it keeps the debate going.

From: an employer more progressive than rabble.ca | Registered: Jun 2003 | IP: Logged

kuri
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4202

posted 11 March 2005 04:48 PM

The bill has now passed. With a

quote:
sunset clause in all but name

according to Mr. Howard (denied by Mr. Blair).

From: an employer more progressive than rabble.ca | Registered: Jun 2003 | IP: Logged

skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 11 March 2005 06:01 PM

I still can't figure out what is happening to the detainees at Belmarsh. There's something in one of those stories about their being granted bail. Will they be re-arrested? Put under house arrest?

From: gone | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

kuri
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4202

posted 11 March 2005 06:11 PM

This Guardian story says 8 of them will have bail with conditions placed upon them, like electronic tagging. I havn't been following the story closely enough to know if those 8 are all of them or if there are more. I came to it kind of late. It seems like the conditions are also subject to change and have been switched around quite a bit already.

In general though, the Home Office, in all its myriad responsibilities is pretty difficult to follow. Seems strange that the English worry so much about the percieved Byzantine bureaucracy in Bruxelles when there's one far more complex and secret in Westminster.

From: an employer more progressive than rabble.ca | Registered: Jun 2003 | IP: Logged

skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 11 March 2005 06:17 PM

I thought that B***r's spin for the press was so cynically twisted. He talked about the "directly elected representatives" guarding the civil liberties of most Britons -- translation: he has politicized civil liberties, and he has furthermore redefined them in majoritarian terms, by which the entire meaning of defending civil liberties is lost.

From: gone | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 11 March 2005 06:18 PM

PS: Too funny: have you noticed that all the Google ads for this thread are about religion and spirituality? Because of the Lords, I guess.

From: gone | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674

posted 15 March 2005 02:40 PM

quote:
I still can't figure out what is happening to the detainees at Belmarsh. There's something in one of those stories about their being granted bail.

in truth, what happened was that they were transferred to another facility in the interim between the legislation expiring and the new bill passed in the lords last friday received royal assent. now, they would be subject to the various levels of control orders introduced by the labour government.

a story: i arrived in london for the weekend on friday night, and my canadian friend, andrew, said "hey, want to walk down to parliament and sit in on the lords," and i said "wah-hey, why not, good night to do it," so we walked down, bought a beer each enroute at trafalgar square, got stopped by police between trafalgar square and parliament and were told to pour it down the sewer, waited 30 min to get into the "strangers gallery" (with the police telling us every 3 minutees, "don't think they'll let you in tonight"), then they let us in, full-body frisk!, and we got to see the last amendments passing with various ladies and lords looking as bridget would say, v.tired. there were these two eastern european ladies waiting in line ahead of us, and i was thinking, in leather pants and in line to see the debate on the terrorism bill, two of them, two of us, strangers in the line for parliament, exchanging glances, what were the chances. in any case, nothing happened ... on the way out, andrew and i spotted ralph fiennes, at some sort of private party tour of parliament! the end.

From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003 | IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time

Hop To: