Full text of the Freedom Bill
Freedom Bill
A
BILL
TO
Amend the law relating to detention of terrorist suspects, control orders and extradition arrangements; to make provision about identity cards, investigatory and surveillance powers, retention and use of samples; to make provision relating to the restoration of rights; to amend the criminal law and make provision regarding criminal trials; to amend data protection and freedom of information legislation; and for connected purposes.
BE IT ENACTED by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows: —
PART 1
TERRORISM ETC
CHAPTER 1
Detention of terrorist suspects
1 Reduction of period of detention of terrorist suspects
(1) Sections 23 to 25 of the Terrorism Act 2006 (c.11) (extension of period of detention of terrorist suspects) ceases to have effect.
CHAPTER 2
PREVENTION OF TERRORISM ACT 2005 (C.2)
Control orders
2 Repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005
(1) The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (c.2) (orders against individuals involved in terrorism-related activity) is repealed.
(2) Sections 21 to 32 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (c. 24) (suspected international terrorists) are repealed.
CHAPTER 3
Designation of part 2 territories
3 Removal of the United States of America from part 2 territories
(1) In the list of territories in paragraph 3(2) of the Extradition Act 2003 (Designation of Part 2 Territories) Order 2003(S.I. 2003/3334) “the United States of America” is omitted.
PART 2
SURVEILLANCE POWERS
CHAPTER 1
IDENTITY CARDS ACT 2006 (C.15)
Identity cards
4 Repeal of the Identity cards 2006
(1) The Identity Cards Act 2006 (c.15) (which establishes the National Identity Register) is repealed.
CHAPTER 2
REGULATION OF INVESTIGATORY POWERS ACT 2000 (C.23)
Surveillance powers and serious crime
5 Amendment of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
(1) The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (c.23) is amended as follows.
(2) In section 28 (authorisation of directed surveillance) for subsection (1) substitute -
“(1) The persons designated under this section may apply to a magistrate for a warrant for authorisation to carry out directed surveillance.”
(3) In subsection (2) of section 28 for “A person shall not grant an authorisation” substitute “A magistrate shall not grant a warrant”
(4) In subsection (3)(b) of section 28 for “detecting crime or of preventing disorder” substitute “detecting serious crime”
(5) In section 29 (authorisation of covert human intelligence sources) for subsection (1) substitute -
“(1) The persons designated under this section may apply to a magistrate for a warrant for authorisation to carry out directed surveillance.”
(6) In subsection (2) of section 29 for “A person shall not grant an authorisation” substitute “A magistrate shalll not grant a warrant”.
(7) In subsection (3)(b) of section 29 for “detecting crime or of preventing disorder” substitute “detecting serious crime.”.”
CHAPTER 3
Retention of fingerprints and samples
6 Restrictions on the retention of fingerprints and samples
(1) That section 82 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 be repealed
(2) That section 9 and section 10 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 be repealed
(3) After section 64A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60) insert—
Destruction of fingerprints and samples etc
(1) After a person is either not charged or acquitted of the offence for which a sample has been taken that sample shall be destroyed within one month of the fingerprints or samples being taken or the person being acquitted.
(2) This section applies to the following material—
(a) photographs falling within a description specified in the regulations,
(b) fingerprints taken from a person in connection with the investigation of an offence,
(c) impressions of footwear so taken from a person,
(d) DNA and other samples so taken from a person,
(e) information derived from DNA samples so taken from a person.
(3) For the purposes of this section—
(a) “photograph” includes a moving image, and
(b) the reference to a DNA sample is a reference to any material that has come from a human body and consists of or includes human cells.
CHAPTER 4
Establishment of a Royal Commission
7 Royal Commission to recommend on the use and regulation of CCTV
(1) A Royal Commission is to be established to make urgent recommendations on the use and regulation of Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) and the impact of CCTV on privacy.
PART 3
RESTORATION OF RIGHTS
CHAPTER 1
Right to protest in the vicinity of Parliament Square
8 Repeal of offences restricting the right to protest in the vicinity of Parliament
(1) Omit sections 132 to 138 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (c. 15) (which regulate demonstrations in the vicinity of Parliament).
(2) In the Table in section 175(3) of That Act (transitional provision relating to offences) omit the entries relating to section 136.
(3) In paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 2 to the Noise and Statutory Nuisance Act 1993 (c. 40) (which is about consents for the operation of loudspeaker) omit “or of section 137(1) of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005″.
(4) Omit paragraph 64 of Schedule 6 to the Serious Crime Act 2007 (c. 27).
CHAPTER 2
Constitution of a public assembly
9 Extension to the number of people constituting a public assembly
(1) Section 57 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 (c.38) (reduction in the definition of public assembly) ceases to have effect.
CHAPTER 3
Designated sites
10 Repeal of offences of trespassing on designated site
(1) Omit sections 128 to 131 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (c. 15) (which creates an offence of trespass on designated site).
CHAPTER 4
Restoration of the right to silence
11 Repeal of provisions which restrict the right to silence
(1) Omit sections 34 to 39 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (c. 33) (which allows inferences from the silence of the accused).
PART 4
CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROVISIONS
CHAPTER 1
Trials on indictment without a jury
12 Repeal of provisions to allow for fraud cases to be conducted without a jury
(1) Omit section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c.44) (fraud trials to be conducted without a jury).
CHAPTER 2
Public interest defence for whistleblowers
13 Restoration of the public interest defence for whistleblowers
(1) After section 7 (2)(b) of the Official Secrets Act 1989 (c.6) insert –
(c) and the government contractor can demonstrate that the disclosure caused more good than harm to the public interest before a court.
(2) After section 7 (3) (b) of the Official Secrets Act 1989 (c.6) insert –
(c) and the person can demonstrate that the disclosure caused more good than harm to the public interest before a court.
CHAPTER 3
Defendant’s bad character
14 Repeal of provisions which allow evidence of a defendant’s bad character
(1) Omit sections 98 to 113 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c.44) (evidence of bad character).
CHAPTER 4
Cases that may be retried
15 Reduction in the number of cases that may be retried
(1) Omit schedule 5 paragraph 2 to 24 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c.44) (list of offences for England and Wales).
(2) Omit schedule 5 paragraph 26 to 29 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c.44) (list of offences for England and Wales).
(3) Omit schedule 5 paragraph 31 to 45 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c.44) (list of offences for Northern Ireland).
(4) Omit schedule 5 paragraph 47 to 50 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c.44) (list of offences for Northern Ireland).
CHAPTER 5
Taking control of goods
16 Repeal of provisions which allow bailiffs to use force
(1) Omit schedule 12 paragraph 17 to 19 of the Tribunal, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (c.15) (powers for enforcement agency to use reasonable force).
PART 5
DATA PROTECTION AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
CHAPTER 1
Strengthening freedom of information
17 Substantial prejudice in freedom of information
1 (1) In section 36 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (c. 33), in paragraph 2a after “prejudice” insert “substantially”.
(2) In section 36 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (c. 33), in paragraph 2b after “inhibit” insert “substantially”.
(3) In section 36 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (c. 33), in paragraph 2c after “would otherwise prejudice” insert “substantially” and after “be likely otherwise to prejudice” insert “substantially”.
2 After section 41 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (c. 29) insert—
“41A Assessment notices
(1) The Commissioner may serve a data controller with a notice (in this Act referred to as an “assessment notice”) for the purpose of enabling the Commissioner to determine whether the data controller has complied or is complying with the data protection principles.
(2) An assessment notice is a notice which requires the data controller to do all or any of the following—
(a) permit the Commissioner to enter any specified premises;
(b) direct the Commissioner to any documents on the premises that are of a specified description;
(c) assist the Commissioner to view any information of a specified description that is capable of being viewed using equipment on the premises;
(d) comply with any request from the Commissioner for—
(i) a copy of any of the documents to which the Commissioner is directed;
(ii) a copy (in such form as may be requested) of any of the information which the Commissioner is assisted to view;
(e) direct the Commissioner to any equipment or other material on the premises which is of a specified description;
(f) permit the Commissioner to inspect or examine any of the documents, information, equipment or material to which the Commissioner is directed or which the Commissioner is assisted to view;
(g) permit the Commissioner to observe the processing of any personal data that takes place on the premises;
(h) make available for interview by the Commissioner a specified number of persons of a specified description who process personal data on behalf of the data controller (or such number as are willing to be interviewed).
(3) In subsection (3) references to the Commissioner include references to the Commissioner’s officers and staff.
CHAPTER 2
Ministerial veto on freedom of information
18 Repeal of ministerial ability to veto Information Tribunal decisions
(1) Omit section 53 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (c.36) (exception from duty to comply with decision notice or enforcement notice).
(2) In section 59 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (c.36) (appeals from decision of Tribunal), omit “on a point of law”.
CHAPTER 3
Children’s information databases
19 Repeal of provisions to allow for the establishment of children’s databases
(1) Section 12 of the Children Act 2004 (c.31) (information databases) ceases to have effect.
(2) SI 2007 No. 2182, The Children Act 2004 Information Database (England) Regulations 2007 ceases to have effect.
CHAPTER 4
Parental consent
20 Regulations to govern parental consent for taking children’s biometric samples
(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations to provide for the retention, use and destruction of material to which this section applies.
(2) The regulations must make provision as to the gathering of parental consent before material is taken from a person under the age of 16.
(3) This section applies to the following material—
(a) fingerprints taken from a person under the age of 16,
(b) DNA and other samples taken from a person under the age of 16,
(c) information derived from DNA samples so taken from a person under the age of 16,
(d) other biometric information as the Secretary of State thinks fit.
(4) The Secretary of State may make exceptions in the regulations in regard to —
(a) criminal justice,
(b) immigration.
PART 6
GENERAL
21 Commencement
(1) This Act comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which it is passed.
22 Short title
(1) This Act may be cited as the Freedom Act 2009.
This is a major step in the right direction, what can people do to make it happen?
A good start, but nowhere near sufficient.
- Why the three year retention for DNA for alleged violent/sexual offences against *innocent* individuals (ie uncharged or acquitted)?
- 14 days pre-charge is still too long – it should go back to the old 24 hours limit.
- Double jeopardy: the only exception should be following the conviction of the defendant for perjury or tampering with witnesses/jury.
Hi Marcus – http://freedom.libdems.org.uk/petition/ is a start of what you can do.
@Julian
> Why the three year retention for DNA for alleged violent/sexual offences against *innocent* individuals (ie uncharged or acquitted)?
This is most likely inspired by what is happening in Scotland: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/New.....2/24124302
==
Existing legislation in Scotland allows an individual’s DNA data to be retained without consent in three broad circumstances:
* For so long as the person is part of an on-going investigation for which the DNA was taken and in relation to which he may eventually be prosecuted
* Indefinitely, following a criminal conviction
* Temporarily, if the person has criminal proceedings instituted against them for a relevant violent or sexual offence but are not convicted (retention is for three years, after which a Chief Constable can apply to a Sheriff for extensions of up to two years)
==
br -d
Yes, a good start but for me theres something major missing here. The Misuse of Drugs Act is a failure, as is the war on drugs. Criminalizing innocent people for choosing to ingest something into their own body is a farce. It cannot be maintained or upheld, and does nothing to protect children from the thriving black market currently cause by prohibition.
The act is also in place to protect people from harm, currently it maximises it and that is totally unacceptable. Recreational and medical users should be allowed to do so in the privacy of their own homes. Addicts and abusers need treatment as with any other legal drug problem. Substances should never be available to children for obvious health reasons, and regulation set in place would be a much more preventative measure than letting dealers decide who to approach. Due to the nature of greedy black market dealers, drugs are often bulked out with extremely harmful additives to increase weight or yield. It’s a common and very dangerous issue to the masses who currently rightfully ignore a breach of their human rights.
A start yes, however, simply removing 1 or 2 clauses in a number of Acts does nothing to remove the underlying evil behind much of this primary legislation, and can easily be put back in by a subsequent government.
I fear that this is merely window dressing in order to catch media and voter attention rather than a genuine Liberal attempt at restoring the Liberties of the UK population.
It is noted that it does not once use the words Liberty or Liberties, but Freedom. A strange choice of wording or perhaps not, as we know full well that the Acts will never be allowed to be repealed by the EU, of which your party is so fully supportive.
As others have mentioned, detention needs to come down to 24hrs then permission needed to extend.
The whole issue of Bailiffs and who constitutes such a person, the need for warrants should all be restored to historic levels. Forget tea, the American Revolution of Independence gained strength because British forces wrote their own “warrants” to gain entry to private property. It is noted, though, that with RIPA, the warrant returns, but still the question remains if we actually need the act in the first place?
I do not see any attempt to limit the scope of SI’s in this area either. SI’s are damnable. Who needs an Ermächtigungsgesetz when you have the recent legislation in regards to them?
Fact is, much of this is just air while we still have our Sovereignty handed over to the EU. It is clear that the European Court, Commission and Parliament believe they are sovereign over us and this must end. Remaining “in Europe” is a good thing, but just not “in the EU” if that body demands the surrender of sovereignty.
Until the EU and SI issues are resolved, the Bill is but smoke.
Julian has a point that 14 days is far too long to hold someone without evidance
but conversely 24 hours really is cutting it a little fine with the demands currently placed apon police services … 72 hours seems like a workable and practacal timeframe
Chapter 4 i find is still to broad and that DNA samples should only be taken in criminal cases..
In Response to Ross; Do you realistical expect to get that sort of radical overhaul throught as part of a rather radical piece of legislation as it stands …Reguardless of what you think is more pressing lets try and get this act passed before we try and get pot, prosuitues, and land vaule tax passed too
Certainly a refreshing step in the right direction. One wonders however that, with most of this lunacy being dictated by the unlected idiots in the EU, just how effective such legislation will be. Unless and until we rid ourselves of this slaveish cow towing to the great European state, such legislation, although well meaning, will simply be overridden. We must also accept that our position withing the EU is untennable and, in fact, treasonable and take action to rid ourselves of any legislative connection, whilst maintaining a trading link – no mean feat. But, as they say, every journey starts with the first step. Whilst re-drafting legislation, can we please allow our smokers back inside our pubs and off the street? It is a simple enough thing to do but the resultant political “clout” is constantly being underestimated. Whatever one’s views on the matter, the current lunacy is simply not working and actually produces the inverse result from the published aims (although this seems to change on a daily basis). It is a small thing but would gain the votes and admiration of around 25% of the population.
[...] Read The Freedom Bill [...]
Finally the Lib-Dems have seriously addressed the erosion of civil Liberties that has accompanied the Labour Party in Power. I left the Labour Party in 2000 because i saw the writing on the wall for civil liberties and joined what i believed to be a party that would always place individual liberty at the top of the agenda. I have been dissapointed and this has undermined my enthusiasm and motivation. The Freedom Bill has revitalised my motivation and goes a long way. However, it does not go far enough. I would like to review and challenge every piece of criminal legislation introduced by the labour Party in power. I would also like to review the cultural change introduced through use of ‘targets’ in criminal law enforcement. How can a system that assumes innocent until proven guilty have conviction targets?
DNA Records: Be careful there is a need to hold a data base and I suggest that where anyone who has committed a serious crime or a number of. Their DNA should remain on the system for three years.
For it’s size this country has the most CCCTV cameras in the wolrd. This has come about because of a lack of moral responsibility and the development of the educational system regarding civil responsibility and civil respect. Lib DEms should be campaigning for a better cultural change within the UK to stop the need for CCTV coverage. Hope this makes sense
Chapter 3 should also make the use of a relative’s DNA sample or records inadmissable in court i.e. if my father has been convicted of an offence and his DNA is included in the database, it should not be used to prosecute me. The DNA database is currently used this way and it’s a backdoor way of archiving the DNA of people who have not been convicted of a crime.
Whilst i agree fully with the points stated to ‘give back’ rights and freedoms previously known to us, I don’t believe that this bill is entirely just. In my opinion, every human right comes with an equal and relevant human responsibility, i.e. we have the right (providing we meet test criteria) to drive a car, however that comes with the responsibility to not park the car in a no-parking zone. Should we abondon this responsibility, the right to drive our cars is damaged, through clamping or fining etc. For this bill to work, we cannot simply petition for freedom and rights, we need to draw up the responsibilities that need to be displayed in order to maintain these rights. This is not to say that one has to ‘earn’ their rights, it is saying that we as people deserve these freedoms as we continuously maintain the equal and relevant responsilities, and those who do not maintain these resposnibilities are not entitled to claim the rights.
A good step in the right direction, but it needs much more I think. Is it worth adding some basic principles relating to the articles of human rights?
I am no where near an expert on the processes of bills however.
More than anything else the people of the UK will wish to protect the victims of crime. There is no mention of the rights of victims of crime but there is always plenty of activity to protect the criminal from justice. Here in Wyre Forst a young man has been murdered over a silly matter of owing money for some fuel. He was apparently held down by the alleged murderer’s mother whilst he was knifed. The perpetrators of this crime will no dounbt be sent down for a life sentence of 20 years and then be released back into society to continue their criminal activities. We should not lose sight of the fact that the victims of crime also have rights to be protected. There was a time when a life sentence was a real deterrent, when criminals were put to work doing something useful for society, like helping to build bridges, lay railway track, quarrying, etc Now they spend a large amont of their time watching colour TV, playing video games, table tennis, football. Fair enough give criminals a fair trial but for the sake of the victims and as a deterrent to others make sure they serve a fair sentence for the crime they have committed. I am told that the reaqson so many criminals are allowed out early on parrol is because the defence lawyers are so much more clever than thos prosecuting crime. There is also a serious shortage of places in prisons. Maybe the answer is to start a prison island or an old ship anchored sufficiently off the coast where these offenders will have to learn to become self sufficient and cost the tax payer far less money. Oh dear no one to cook their dinners, no gym to train in and no security guards to supply them with drugs. Yes its time we gave serious thought to civil rights for those that suffer from being robbed at gunpoint, those that are raped, etc. Dont shed too many tears for the criminals – they really dont deserve it. Teach our schoolchildren about life in the real world – but dont expect life skills to be tought by their parents a lot of them would be totally incapable. If the extremist Muslim cleric is allowed to stay in the UK whilst he argues the law on legal aid and lives on all the benefits available the cost will be well over a million pounds to us tax payers. This nonsense being permeated by the EEC must stop. Do they really believe they are on the side of justice – I think not and I dounbt very much whether the vast majority of voters in the UK think so either. So lets be very careful not to appear on the side of the law breakers. We should very clearly come down on the side of those that respect the law.
We shoul;d also be working toward the building of the UN.
Thank God for Chris H. Everyone of the matters covered are important as erosion of our centuries old common rights. The DNA register really does need a severe overhaul (including as it does a permanent record of pubescent fumblings). ID cards do have some superficial attractions until you realiz how they have been used throughout history and the regular misuse of anti-terrorist measures by the current Labour government. Some MPs would have no idea what the people of the country thought without the right to demonstrate, that has been underlined by the examples of recent cloud-cuckoo land dwelling by some Ministers.
I am in agreement with the proposals in the Freedom Bill. I also think that the bill should include restrictions on the capture and use of information by local councils and that any information held by an individual must be available to that individual immediately on request.
I also think that the related matter of the law being used to restrict ordinary people from taking photographs in public places of any place or anyone needsto be changed back to its previous status. There should be no restrictions on photography of the police or security forces as they execute their duties when the freedom of the press to report a situation is threatened.
I do agree with comments on personal responsibilities accompanying the protection of personal rights and as well as obeying just laws we should be willing to co-operate with police and security forces in a spirit of community protection but in a way that protects the right of people to conduct their lives ‘freely and without hindrance’ and the right of the press to report on the actions and events concerning any incident.
What is the extent of the bill, i.e. would all of it or part(s) extend to Scotland, such as in devolved issues as with the UK FoI Act?
I meant reserved issues!
The comments already made, both supporting and questioning, illustrate what an undertaking this is to address an accumulation of possibly carelessly worded, possibly deliberately ambiguously worded legislation. It is laudable to make the attempt and I think it is a very appropriate time to do this since we are now in a period of rapidly growing government that is taking many more decisions about more aspects of our lives in more detail than at any time in living memory. The quality of those decisions is proving variable at best but at least the spotlight is on them and will likely raise the issue in more peoples mind as to whether we really want to continue to allow the various authorities to have such powers of surveillance and incarceration.
The devil is of course in the detail, but as someone has already commented, the longest journey starts with a single step, and this is a good start.
Sorry if I’m being obtuse but I can’t find any actual restoration of the public-interest defence in the portion of the Bill supposedly dedicated to it. Can someone with better appreciation for legal turns of phrase please explain how the language of section 13 (Part 4, Chapter 2) – which appears to be about creating a range of new misdemeanors – actually serves the purpose suggested by the Chapter’s title?
As a UK citizen (albeit presently resident in Canada) it’s always seemed to me that a solid public-interest defence is one of the necessary compromises between state security and a free press. It actually helps to enshrine the Rule of Law over those grey areas of individual conviction. I hope this Bill’s apparent ambivalence about these matters is due solely to the obscurity of its language!
Great Bill. It’s not perfect, but goes so far to remedying things.
Check out this site (http://billofrights.synthasite.com/) for a really fully comprehensive Bill of Rights!
Very good will reverse the current ludicrous restrictions on individuals
MarkAnthony – point taken, I’m happy to admit that whilst I still believe it to be extremely important on many levels, maybe it’s the place but perhaps not the time. The points raised on the bill are still worthwhile in itself.
Well done to Chris Huhne.
I try to be a law abiding citizen, but it seems that even campaining for the Lib Dems could be sufficient for
those in power to consider me as being a subversive person. We have no constitution that guarantees
rights. In the USA the type of legislation that has been brought in by UK governments would just not get
passed. The whole tone of recent legislation is that you may be guilty and therefore WE can treat your rights to privacy with contempt.
Well done to Chris Huhne.
I try to be a law abiding citizen, but it seems that even campaining for the Lib Dems could be sufficient for
those in power to consider me as being a subversive person. We have no constitution that guarantees
rights. In the USA the type of legislation that has been brought in by UK governments would just not get
passed. We in the UK agree to extradite people to the US without sufficient safeguards and no similar
obligation from the USA. The whole tone of recent legislation is that you may be guilty and therefore WE can treat your rights to privacy with contempt. I am particulary concerned that schools have systems of storing biometric data and there are no real safeguards. Who really can ensure that information is not misused. There may be some rights to complain but this does not result inf fast action. The individual even though totally innocent lands up with a loss of income and possible financial difficulties. As far as I know there is no financial compensation for happenning to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and being treated as an offender and detained.
Rod Kilvert and many others have raised the need for protection from more odious pieces of legislation; citeing the US’s Bill of Rights pehaps incorrectly as a far more potent defense of a individuals rights & liberty’s a unpolictised sumpreme court does a fantastic job.. now thats a templete for use to follow pehaps incorprating jury selection for 4 month terms apon the board… but again time and place dictate that we put those ideas to one side..for now
this bill is a start not an end
but by discussing these ideas we could look to formulate a serious content rich manifesto for next year
so lets get our arses in gear and prep for the party conferance
We need this bill to be passed. As without it, we will become a dictatship and make a mockery of what our brave troops fought for and fight today for, “FREEDOM”.
As a strong lib dem supported I’m not surprised to see it is our party who attempts this. Many of the things on this list are things that my student lib dme group, of which I am party leader of the lib dems, have called to be implemented for a long time.
There is however another thing that I feel should be added. Under the Legislative and regulatory Reform Act 2006 Chapter 51 sec. 1 any ‘minister of the crown’ may change law if he/she deems it to be a burden. The statute sets out in 1)3)a-d) that a ‘burden’ can be ‘a financial cost; an administrative invonvenience; An obstacle to efficiency, productivity or profitability; or a sanction, criminal or otherwise which affects the carrying on of any wayful activity’.
If that minister believes that under these definitions any law is a ‘burden’ he may amend it to ‘remove or reduce that burden’. Can anyone here think of ANY law which would not be a burden by these definitions? It would have to be a law which at no stage cost money, At no stage needed any administration. There are no such laws. As such and Minister of the crown, be they minister for education, health or the prime minister can change law AS THEY SEE FIT without consent of Parliment.
Ladies and gentlemen, the passing of this bill resulted in us loosing our democracy. We are now a dictatorship PRETENDING to be democratic. Of course Blair promised it wouldn’t be abused. Prehaps he meant it. But as we know, One government cannot bind a future government. So Brown is not covered by Blairs promise, and nor would the next government be. I strongly urge this party to consider and attempt to make amendments to or repeals this Law.
Where is the freedom to choose homeopathy as a medical treatment provided by the NHS, it is enshirned in the act that brought the NHS into being, but subsequent legislation giving power to unelected NHS Trusts has ineffect removed this right for most of the population.
We need as specific right to have the freedom to choose organic, un radiated, non GM and properly labeled food.
We need a specific right to choose how to medically treat our children with out being abused verbally or in other media.
“We need a specific right to have the freedom to choose organic, un radiated, non GM and properly labeled food.”
No, you don’t. You just need the freedom to choose what to do with yourself in general. (And, incidentally, I ought to have the freedom not to subsidise wacky views on homoeopathy, MMR or any of the rest of it.) If we go down the road of specifically enumerating “rights” like that, then no end of mischief will result, and we shall never get to the end of the “rights” people have. Far better to declare general freedoms and let people act within them.
Graham Potter those freedoms are already in place …
you are free to seek homopathic remdeys on your own recognicious
your also free to pay for them your self
and wonder and mavel at free market economics that means you can freely purchase GM free gluton free fun free foods till the cows come home
and if you want your kids to learn intellagent design feel free as bird to teach them your self
put publc money must be spent inline with the views of the majority
if it means that much to you ..you shouldn’t mind spending a little extra time or money
I mean I would cancel christmas all togeather not because I don’t want to offend other faiths
but because i think Athesism should be our state sanction religion…
seen as less then 10% of the population hold a similar opinion its not goin happen
so feel free to read other people comments then come to a broad conclusion like the rest of us, this bill does a lot to restore pre existing rights not sanction the grinding of personal axes
I agree that this is a step in the right direction but I do believe it needs to be examined thouroghly. there’s a couple of aspects which I feel would be better served by being re-written rather than scrapped completely, for example; the double jepardy rules I agree that there’s now far too many crimes exempt from this but I do feel that it would be a step backwards to reduces this purely to murder and genocide. My reason for this is that we risk serious sexual offenders going free due to the victims of their crimes being too young or traumatised to provide adequate details for evidence.
Whilst the Bill could go further it is best to make a start, bring the issues into the public and hopefully get the most offensive bits of legislation struck. If most of the UK’s liberals vote LibDem at the next election then, just maybe, the Party might be in a position to make some real changes.
This is a start, Chris. But my main concern is your omission so far of any discussion of detentions of dissidents and whistleblowers under the Mental Health Act or local authority-run ASBO or Family Intervention teams instead. In my experience, what generally happens is that when the police cannot detain or monitor the lives of individuals on a firm legal footing, then it’s all too easy to classify people using other means available to them. Similar problems face the victims of corporate crime, those blacklisted by employers, or in the worse case scenario, those affected by institutional corruption or politicised welfare instruments. Or am I just being naive in pointing out the class inequalities that continue to permeate much liberal social policy even today? How can we be sure this Bill will prevent the victims of oppression from being shunted into some kind of adult social care bunker once statutory powers are in place to prevent their detention or surveillance under the Criminal Justice Bill?
Clearly, until these potholes on the freedom road have been filled, there are those of us who will remain sceptical about the effectiveness of any such Bill to truly act on behalf of marginalised and oppressed people in Britain.
Incidentally, I also agree that the 3 year retention of DNA samples taken from people acquitted of sexual or violent crimes should be revoked instantly.
Having looked at the 20 point of this bill and may not agree with or have some resovations about some of them Chris Huhne should be congratulated for having the foresight and curage to tacle such an emotive and complex issue. This bill is a good starting point to address the ballance and restore public faith in those that have supposedly been elected to serve their needs. Well done again Chris. As some one has all ready said “read the Bill” and digest it and support it.
I think this is a very positive step. While many other areas of personal liberty and individuality are also subject to state repression, it is important to target those that are most despised by the widest spread of us, the general public.
Consideration that parental permission/oversight to age 18 [instead of 16].
Rational – soon parents responsible to see children attend school to 18 and maybe getting married, full driving license, having sex etc.. should also be standardised at 18 – alongside drinking and voting?
A suggestion for the web team – I like having a quiz on the site. How about giving people an opportunity to rank their favourite provisions of the Bill? Or an opportunity to nominate their top choice for a 21st provision? (OK, that was two suggestions!)
reading through the comments, many people have misunderstood the purpose of this.
This is to strip away unneeded and unwanted clauses that start from the principle of guilty until proven innocent.
We should not be adding to the legislative burden with anything like change in age of responsibility or choice of NHS treatments.
Re: Leon Jones February 27th, 2009 5:28 pm
A pox on your “responsibilities”. We have laws to govern such things, not a bill of rights. I do not “owe” the State anything. A BoR is there to restrain the State, to limit its powers, not some back-door way to corral the people. The only “responsibility” I have is to not murder, steal, cheat or commit violence including coercion upon others. Laws deal with that. If I have my freedoms taken from me – and the State is currently trying to wrest them off me as we speak, I am damned if I am going to be asked to yield anything to that scoundrel so I might get them back. Hands off.
Such statements as to “responsibilities” exposes those who are not Liberal in their hearts but instead are enforced collectivists in Liberal clothing.
Re: Graham Potter February 28th, 2009 10:09 am
You clearly like the Labour idea of “rights”. You have a right to take homeopathy, for sure, but you do NOT have the “right” to force me to fund it via the NHS. The answer to your problem is to end the State monopoly on healthcare provision. Then you can buy the health insurance you want and have your healthcare provided Homoeopathically and I can leave you to it and all the responsibilities and consequences thereof.
It is absurd that people can be prosecuted for possessing a document ‘likely to be of use to a terrorist’. The number of documents fitting that description is vast and it is a restriction on freedom of speech. Something should be done about that.
It is equally absurd, and frankly it is obscene, that people can be prosecuted for taking photographs of the police. I think the Freedom Bill should address that issue too.
The system for background checks is also very unfair. The decision about what to include in people’s CRB reports should be taken out of the hands of the police.
No mention of amending the smoking ban then …..That’s 12 million votes that you have lost.
Ned: thanks for the idea, which we’ll think about for when we do the next round of changes.
I agree with Graham Potter’s request for homeopathy. This is the situation facing many people at the moment.
* We pay for our medical treatment via our taxes, throughout our lifetime.
* When we become sick we go to the NHS, and they invariably, almost exclusively, provide conventional medicine – usually drugs and vaccinations that many people believe, and have good reason to believe, are dangerous (lots of adverse reactions, causing diseases, often worse than the original condition, etc)
* If we ask for homeopathy we are told we cannot have it!
This is not just a breach of human rights (to treat ourselves according to the way we want to be treated), but a breach of economic trust. If I save throughout my life to buy a Jaguar car, I don’t then expect to be denied this, and told that I can only have a Renault.
I certainly don’t think people should be asked to pay twice for medical treatment, by going outside the NHS to received homeopathic treatment. And as for Leon Jones comment that he should not be forced to pay for homeopathy, he forgets that I (and Graham Potter) have paid towards our NHS treatment. I don’t want to stop him getting his conventional treatment , so why should he want to prevent me (and Graham) accessing homeopathy? That sounds more that Big Brother – you can have what I, and Leon Jones says I can have, but nothing else! Very illiberal!
The 3 main political parties have now got a choice agenda in their health policies. But none has a choice agenda that goes beyond conventional treatment. It is time tjhe Social Democrats took the lead in this – they would find a lot of support.
The principle’s a good one, though as a bill it seems like a list of (as Chris Huhne actually put it in his email to party members) ‘civil liberties “hobby-horse”s. Avoid that word, Chris – good law doesn’t come out of hobby-horses but strong well-argued principles backed up by workable solutions. The other risk is that any hope of actually getting one good change through is scuppered by diluting it.
That said (he says, raising his recreational saddle and preparing to giddy-up), the most alarming constraints on liberties at the moment are on freedom of expression, and the censure often comes not from the government but from organisations (public and private) and potential employers as they scan the facebook pages etc of their employees and enforce corporate values. There needs to be formal protection for freedom of political, philosophical and religious expression and thought which goes all ways and stops people losing a job where they adhere to corporate values at work but have their own on their blog or facebook page. Yes, some views may be scary, or socially unacceptable but social censure, and regular challenges from ones peers are the way a society deals with this.
Secondly, the removal of innocent people from the DNA database is an obvious one (after all, any DNA from a crime scene would still be kept), however the police also still keep records of when innocent people have been arrested for crimes they were later aquitted of, and these records are sometimes returned via CRB checks, ruining many people’s chances of working in the increasing number of sectors that require them. Police cautions which are spent are also being kept, including ones issued before the change in the law which allowed this, and this also needs changing. Any law is a contract between a citizen and the state, and it is important that the state honour the spirit of that law if they expect to keep the faith of the public – so holding onto spent cautions in this manner criminalises people for life who never committed an offence warranting a conviction in the first place. In fact a whole review of the safeguarding approach, where we’re starting to see parents having to be CRB checked to host exchange students and so on, needs to be reviewed.
Both of these areas require the government – well, actually they require us all as citizens – to stand up to the risk-averse, litigious culture that we’ve imported from the US and embraced so thoroughly and accept that there are no simple solutions to differences of opinion or belief, apart from to respond to that with which you don’t agree with a strong and well-thought out counter-argument, or respond to that which is simply offensive by ignoring it and moving on? That there are no simple solutions to ensuring that the (actually very small amount of, often with no police history) very wrong people never get close to children without banning teachers from giving a crying child a hug and without leaving a parent once arrested for a violent offence they never actually committed having to constantly explain themselves to disbelieving school authorities in fear of litigation once the school trip comes along?
I’m going to stick my neck out here, as I think there’s a fundamental shift required in this whole debate. ID cards are not the problem, though the motives behind their introduction may well be – they are used successfully in other countries and could be very useful in reducing the amount of intrusive identity checking done by corporates, and in preventing electoral fraud. What is important is that they are not widely forged and – most importantly – that they are not used to aid the infringement of the rights and freedoms of British citizens. The card itself is irrelevant, and might actually be a good idea (I’m not sure) however if we bring it in there needs to be a lot of clarification on what it can and cannot be used for.
Maybe the government needs to remember the advice of Robert Cialdini, identifier of the 7 principles of influence and himself a great influence on Tony Blair. He said that the more you publicise the risk of terrorists, of child abusers etc the more you will get because the less extreme it seems to those potential culprits who could go either way to follow their most dangerous instincts. Treating everyone as a criminal unless they prove otherwise can only be bad for our society.
“We need a specific right to choose how to medically treat our children with out being abused verbally or in other media.”
Rubbish, we need a specific right for children not receive proper medical care regardless of their parent’s ignorance. If homeopathy actually worked, then we wouldn’t have developed modern medicine in the first place.
Surely all ot these violations of Civil Liberties have come about in the last 60 years because of one simple truth. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights ‘proclaimed’ by the United Nations on the 10th Dec 1948, which the UK was involved in drawing up an amendment to, has not been fully upheld by any Government of the UK since then. Nor, it has to be said, by any other ‘Member State’ of the UN either.
What we need now is what we should have had 60 years ago, namely a Bill of Rights encompassing all the rights and freedoms specified in that Declaration. The fact that we haven’t had this is itself a violation of Articles 2 and 30 of that Declaration, so what have all the MP’s been doing for the last 60 years? Getting money for nothing, like the Merchant Bankers with Pension Funds wortth Millions!
The 1688 Bill of Rights is also still on the Stautory Law database, but that was drawn up by a biased Parliament which proclaimed the Supremecy of the Protestant Faith so is thus discriminatory and not based on equality of human rights for everyone. So that needs to be repealed along with any other ‘Acts’ of Parliament which have been written since 1948 which violate the principles of human rights for all.
I also found on-line, that the former Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer actually boasted in a document purporting to be a guide to the 1998 Human Rights Act that Parliament could pass any ‘Act’ which is incompatible with the European Convention of Human Rights (based losely on the UN Declaration), simply by the Minister putting it to Parliament for the Government stating they wished to press on with it regardless.
So what right do politicians have to do this? They would no doubt alledge that it’s the principle of ‘Sovereignty’ of the State, which they represent. But what about the freedoms of the people whom they seek election from? Why do we tolerate such abuse of our rights? Let us all demand equal rights for all based on the UN Declaration being written into a Constitution, which even some British ‘territories’ enjoy.
The State (and its servants) should have been working for the good of the people since 1948 but instead they’ve been corrupted by ‘privatisation’ and other euphisims for stealing taxpayers money, like ‘bailing out the banks’ which has all been against the equality of human rights for all. It’s time we demanded a new ‘Glorious Revolution’ based on us rather than ‘them’ and their right to rule.
The timing must now be right for this.
It seems to me as a lay person that it is a good list of measures but it seems to lack the Oomph needed on accountability/transparency and the role of public officers to serve the public given the shameful events of the last few months. I would also try and get the likes of Stella Rimmington or some other wise head to review and advise where the secret hand of the state can be rolled back. I am sure there must be some fairly subsidiary legislation which is interpreted and used in a manner not originally intended.
Having spent most of my working life in such paragons of democracy (sic) as China and Iran I was actually quite shocked on returning to the UK at the extent of the police state here!
Agree wholeheartedly with Wise Owl. (Also agree with Chris Ingle – I have friends whose careers have been ruined by wording in old police reports that come up through CRB checks, even where no formal caution or charge has been made.) Not keen on the double jeopardy changes, but most of the other parts of the Freedom Bill make sense to me. However, without a Bill of Rights and a Constitution there is nothing to stop future governments wiping out any parts of this Bill that get enacted. In theory, the argument for not having a constitution or bill of rights in the past has been that the relationship between the British people, the monarch and the government is somehow unique – the people don’t need to ask for written protection for their rights, because they can trust that the government will be constrained by the monarch to restraining its actions in the interests of the people. If this was ever true it is clearly not so now.
It doesn’t seem very likely to me that any bill of rights could be put together that would be specific enough to prevent any government that so wished from trampling all over them. In the end we ‘citizens’ are always relying on the good character of our governors to ensure our liberty, no bit of paper will change this.
In light of this, what is the use of this bill? It is unlikely it will make it into law in its current form without extensive amendments. Huhne has stated variously on this site and in emails to party types that he cannot rely on the support of the Tories, but without that support it won’t be passed. How about starting small, since the Conservatives have already aligned themselves against ID cards, and simply moving for the repeal of the ID Card Act. Cameron would surely jump at any opportunity to embarrass Brown, and the cause is worthy. In the end a small practical success is worth far more than a world of good intentions.
Thank you misspiggy for your support. I’m prompted by another issue on Rights to post this additional comment, linked to the Monarchy.
Any UK passport bears these word in the inside cover “Her Britannic Majesty’s Secretary of State. Requests and requires in the Name of Her Majesty all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance, and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary.”
This seems to support the right to Freedom of Movement in Article 13 of the UN Declaration in 1948, which includes movement within your own state, however how many car drivers have had their vehicles clamped and stolen in England & Wales over the last decade or more, by what is commonly known as ‘Cowboy Clampers’ or even State sanctioned ones? Then ‘required’ to pay hefty fines, without hearings, to get back their property or else lose it entirely. A Scottish judge ruled this as extortion and theft many years ago.
Surely such acts go against this principle, as do on the spot fines go against the 1688 Bill of Rights. In fact ‘toll roads’ might also infringe the “pass freely without let or hinderence” part. Our Parliament is meant to do all it can to protect our rights yet they haven’t done so and now we’re in all sorts of messes because of those failures and they take taxpayers money to bail the culprits out.
We can’t even rely on the Courts to protect us from real dangers, as can be seen by several recent judgements e.g. the lorry driver who killed 6 people (including children) and got 3 years for each ‘offence’ which he’s allowed to serve ‘concurrently’ rather than consecutively to keep him locked up for longer. By all accounts it was not simply an accident he couldn’t have avoided, yet other innocent people have been improsoned for longer, because the police didn’t do their job right either.
It’s time we drew the line and made them tow it or else we must change the whole basis of our ‘establishment’. Vive la revelotion!
A good bill, but a few things missing. Others have already mentioned some:
Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 – aka the Abolition of Parliament Act – odious and profoundly illiberal piece of legislation that needs to be repealed ASAP.
The whole CRB checks regime needs to be thoroughly reformed: the idea that someone could lose their career because a former employer noted a potentially unfounded concern is outrageous
We need to look at transferring huge chunks of these thousands of criminal offenses out of criminal law and into civil penalty law – starting with most of the Companies Act.
I’ll come back if I can think of any more!
This excellent proposal could get much more support than just from the Lib Dems. Have you thought of extending the remit to cover civil society organisations (such as Liberty), journalists (Guardian? New Statesman?) other politicial parties (SNP?), other politicians (Labour liberal left?)
This is an important step forward. Perhaps the most encouraging aspect is the extent and volume of the comments made. Liberty matters. Responsible freedom matters. My burning concern is to free schools from the government control which is imperilling the futures of our children (www.free-school-from-government-control.com) – but I know this Bill is not the place to tackle it. Good luck to our parliamentarians in pushing this Bill.
[...] – the other week the Liberal Democrats launched their Freedom Bill. More details including the full text can be found on their campaign [...]
[...] Democrat Home Affairs spokesman Chris Huhne MP and colleagues have published their Freedom Bill, detailing how the party plans to roll back the authoritarian laws passed by both Labour and [...]
I agree strongly with Ken Davis’ comments. I support everything that is in the bill, but am concerned that collection of information is more strongly regulated and restricted, for instance the proposed unlimited power for state security agencies to monitor all computer traffic – a power presented as relating to terrorists, and justifiable where a case could be made to a judge that it was based on reasonable suspicion, but bound to be misused against a wide range of dissidents if not properly regulated, and likely to lead to leaks. The principle that all information collected (except on someone currently reasonably suspected of a crime or intention to commit a crime) must be open to checking and correcting by that person is crucial, as Ken says.
Sounds good to me. As other commenters have noted, more could be added, but this seems like an excellent start; might even be enough to persuade me to vote Lib Dem.
I’d like to see some support for the freedom for children to be home-educated without following the National Curriculum or subjected to state supervision; although this right has not yet been eroded, and therefore doesn’t currently belong in the above proposed bill, Labour do seem to have it in their sights with the current rash of consultations and demonisation of home-educating parents in the press. Home-education is concerned with, above all, the right of children to choose where and how they are educated, and I haven’t yet heard the Lib Dems speak out in defence of it. We seem to forget that children value their privacy and right to self-determination as much as adults do.
Good start. The UK is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and as such all areas of the declaration should be recognised. Most particularly, any derogation from the European Convention on Human Rights should immediately be restored. The right to privacy is paramount and as such the government database on email, telephone calls and internet activity MUST be scrapped – even were people to agree to it, when I`ve mentioned it to friends they had no idea such a thing was even proposed, let alone legislated. The proposed amendment to data protection by Jack Straw must also be scrapped – the right to privacy and the protection of our private data is above important, because individual privacy is what makes a person`s life THEIRS and not the government`s. Any proposal to minimise that right or remove it is immature at best and the actions of frightened children at worst.
The right to demonstrate should not be something you have to apply to the police for, nor should the right to strike be something you in effect have to apply to your employer for.
Also, the law states that you are innocent until proven guilty, despite what New Labour would have you believe. And everyone has the right to be charged with an offence and tried before a jury – detention without charge is a human rights abuse and those responsible for this are long overdue to be held accountable.
“Life, faculties, production — in other words, individuality, liberty, property — this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.
What, then, is law?
It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.
Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.
Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?
If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all. ”
~ Excerpt from “The Law” by Frédéric Bastiat
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G1790
It’s certainly a great starting point.
To those who say it doesn’t go far enough, I agree; but remember, politics is a special environment with its own set of rules. There are times when you have to ask for more than you really want, because you know you aren’t going to get everything you ask for; and there are times when you have to ask for less than you really want, because it’s still an improvement.
Hopefully, this will be just the first of a series of Freedom Bills. Once this bill becomes an Act, then we can press for the rest of the good stuff.
I consider the bill should deal with principles.
The main tennant should be that people should be able to make mistakes and act in the manner they believe to be right providing there is no serious detriment to another person. The bill could concentrate on the definitions of serious detriment and which body would make the decision.
Areas covered could be as above but also include all matters to do with personal well being and consumption, family life, home choice, work choice, actions and memberships, possession and use of materials and products and use of the senses.
The onus would be on the person to be responsible. Agencies could hold information but would equally be personally liable if detriement was proven.
If you’re going to repeal powers for councils to engage in snooping, you must also repeal the offences that cannot be enforced without such snooping. It is nonsensical to keep laws on the books that cannot be enforced, so there must be no regulation of how domestic waste is disposed of, no allocation of school places based on residence, no benefits whose payment depends on who sleeps where, and so on.
It’s a step in the right direction, but nowhere near enough.
Why is the Civil Contigencies Act not repealed in its entirity? Why is the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act not repealed in its entirity?
Some “Freedom Bill” this is.
I see that the State, represented by Jack Straw released a Green Paper to LAUNCH A ‘PUBLIC DEBATE’ on Rights and Responsibilities on the 23rd March!!! I would never have known if I hadn’t written to the Ministry of Justice days earlier about Human Rights violations. In case you haven’t seen it (I haven’t read it yet) it’s at http://www.justice.gov.uk/publ.....lities.pdf , I was told. When I’ve had a look at it, it may alarm or surprise me. I wonder of they mention the French guy referred to by Swifty above.
Of course they have been gathering evidence since last year, at least (as I’ve also found on the web) about how great they think the present Human Rights Act has been working. Tell that to the man who got his face bashed in by cops when he heard a commotion at his neighbours and they assumed allegedly ‘he was a thief’, so broke his eye socket, no questions asked. Those cops are not being prosecuted either. Or to the relatives of the latest man to die at their hands this month in London at G20 summit. I suppose the IPCC were only trying to protect their right to a fair and impartial hearing (to ensure they can be prosecuted later) when they tried to supress all the video or CCTV footage from being aired on TV this week too. Honestly, not trying to cover anything up Gov !
If Parliament claims Supremacy over the people now, how is that not the same as James II being an oppressive tyrant, which the Glorious Revolutionaries proclaimed in 1688, before crowning the ‘William of Orange’ King, when he was only married to the alleged true Queen Mary at the time? Phillip wasn’t crowned King with Elizabeth in ‘53 so I believe that none of these claims for ‘Supremacy’ by any State; Group or Person can be tolerated in the 21st Century, because of the 20th Century Universal Declaration’s aim of treating us all as equals. The only proviso on responsibilites in that were that we “should act towards one another, in a spirit of brotherhood” in Article1 and of course Article 30, which denies anyone the right to imply that the Declaration gives them the right to deny; diminish or destroy another’s rights.
Had the UK supported a Russian Article 31 which stated – “The human and civic rights and fundamental freedoms enumerated in the present Declaration shall be guaranteed by national laws. Any violation or limitation of these rights, whether direct or indirect, shall be deemed to violate the present Declaration and to be incompatible with the high principles proclaimed in the United. Nations Charter.”.
Imagine how this would have gone done with Stalin had it been accepted, or even Robert Mugabe; Gadafii and Sadam Hussein in the last 30 years!! Wouldn’t the UN have been in a stronger position to also step in on Human Rights denied in China and any other places over all these years?
The whole world needs a clear and present Universal Bill of Rights which no law of any country can deny; diminish or destroy on the feigned pretence of Sovereignty, of State or Person. The Declaration should have delivered this 60 years ago, under Article 2 but failed, so why don’t we demand it all now back-dated?
It seems the list of legislation to be repealed just gets longer and longer!
Government has floated plans to “randomly” stop motorists without any suspicion of wrongdoing:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2.....ving-tests
“Overnight speculation [i.e. off the record discussion with ministers/advisers?] suggested the government’s plans also include… Increased police powers to stop vehicles without suspecting an offence.”
Although I note it has been dropped from the actual consultation paper:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2.....ving-tests
A bit of kite flying perhaps? Hope the Lib Dems firmly quash this in case it re-emerges at the last minute.
I note that you are only planning to destroy SAMPLES of DNA and have not mentioned the profiles on the database, is this poor drafting or a crafty omission?
@katie
section 6(2)(e) states:
[This section applies to]
(e) information derived from DNA samples so taken from a person.
Hence it would include these profiles.
This is an excellent bill, and should absolutely be passed. The main thing that I feel is missing is that it should include clauses protecting privacy in communications technology. For example, making internet surveillance and key logging etc illegal, with real consequences for those that do, including possibly prison sentences.
Systems like school fingerprinting, even when for supposed benefits like simple paying for school dinners, should not be allowed, at all. Fingerprinting (and new technology like iris recognition) should only be used for crime solving. Parental consent for these ‘initiatives’ is the bare minimum that should be done.
Infringement upon privacy is no way to increase security from terrorists, or to prevent crimes.
http://www.liberty-human-right.....o-2009.pdf is a good, concise review of legislation that needs amending/repealing as a start, much in the same vein as is this bill. Other things need to be done, of course, to ensure the continuing liberty of people in the UK and to uphold the rights to which we are all entitled (possibly with profound constitutional consequences), but as a starting point, I support every measure in this bill.
Excellent. I totally support your efforts.
Frankly, as other posters have identified, this is a small, a _very_ small, step towards restoring the liberties and freedom the British people enjoyed for quite some time. We should indeed reflect on the fact that perhaps, if this thing succeeds, those who took our liberties away in the first place may well succeed in pulling the wool over the eyes of a great many who will eagerly beg to be given back half what has been taken from them. Still, it is a step in the right direction, and it’s been a long time in the coming, so I have put my name on the list.
This new, more fluffy, caring and organically wholesome jackboot pleases me in comparison to the shiny, beautiful looking but very hard and painful leather jackboot that awaits us in the 5 to 10 years following the next time the wolves decide what to have for dinner.
Perhaps I seem to cynical – the authors of the bill are to be lauded for starting what may become a slipperly slope similar but opposite to that which got us where we are now, so I encourage those reading to sign up too.
I’m a Tory activist – and I’m delighted that politicians of whatever political party are willing to stand up to the constant scope-creep of the powers of the State and the erosion of civil liberties in this country.
Parliamentarians, and above all Ministers, need to have the self-confidence to stand up to the demands of unelected officials for ever greater powers over our lives.
Restoring Liberty means actually abolishing a lot of the changes introduced under the recent period of authoritarian socialist government of the UK.
‘the influence of the (Executive) has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished’
[...] Full text of the Freedom Bill [...]
I notice that I forgot to add these words to my comments of 24 April ‘09, regarding the Article 31 which was proposed by Russia in 1948, for the UN Declaration. Namely, “perhaps neither we nor the rest of the world would be in the state it is in now”.
Having done more research into the UN archives, I wonder if others, including the Lib Dems, Tories and Labour Party politicians are aware of another UN Resolution in 1998 on 9th Dec (at the 50th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration) adopted by the General Assembly? You would expect them to as it’s their job, but for the rest of you it’s Resolution 53/144 and can be found at – http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda.....enDocument or even from Canada at – http://www.canadacourtwatch.co.....groups.pdf .
Another Resolution they passed in 1993 was 48/134 on 20 Dec 1993 on directions for setting up ‘national instutions’ to promote and potect humn rights in every ‘UN Member State’, yet you won’t find this on the State webites either, apart from references to it in evidence submitted by third parties, such as at :- http://www.publications.parlia.....78we23.htm.
So apparently our so called ‘Parliamentary Democracy’ didn’t see fit to debate or publicise either of these UN Resolutions at the time, nor it seems the Universal Declaration in 1948? Can anyone remember being taught the details of that, in school or other ‘educational establishments’ or reading the full Declaration in any papers since 1948? I believe they owe us an explanation for this and therefore all those rights now, as a minimum ‘Bill of Rights’, without further debate. They are debating this topic at:- http://governance.justice.gov.uk/ ( but I believe they are just killing/wasting time, till they get kicked out at the next General Election next year, if not sooner).
After you read all these documents please send your opinions to Eddie.Coleman whom I believe is in charge of gathering submissions on it, rather than using their web page if possible.
[...] Full text of the Freedom Bill [...]
I’m with AJS on this,
Good starting point, although I think monitoring of communications should also be addressed.