Bush looks upon Blair in awe

[DinoDoc]

Belgian interior minister
slams UK anti-terror laws

11 March 2005

BRUSSELS - Interior Minister Patrick Dewael has denounced the British government’s new anti-terrorism legislation as "unacceptable".

Dewael made his remarks at an international anti-terrorism conference in Madrid on Thursday, a day before the UK parliament finally approved the new legislation after much bitter wrangling.

On Friday, La Libre Belgique reported that Dewael, who represented Belgium at the conference, had said the new British proposals were dangerous since they would give the government new powers to order house arrest and impose curfews and electronic tagging without trial.

Under the new law, the UK government will have to apply to a judge to issue house arrest orders, but in an emergency a minister can immediately order lesser measures like curfews and electronic tagging and seek court approval within seven days.

Dewael insisted on Thursday that if, as subsequently happened, the legislation was approved he would find it unacceptable.

"The police or home office can deprive people of their liberty without the intervention of a judge," said Dewael.

"The separation of powers must be respected. Arrests must be endorsed by a magistrate. If that takes too long, I would get those procedures speeded up, but they mustn’t disappear," he added

"I refuse to go down the road of a kind of permanent state of alert," the minister continued.

The UK legislation is set to come up for review in a year.

[Pekka]

terrorists gain yet another point. ****, they're leading pretty big now.

[Dinner]

The British legislation seems pretty balanced. It allows magistrates to act immediately but requires then to go to a judge as soon as possible for minor things while the major stuff the judge still must approve ahead of time. It even includes a sunset clause.

I'm not seeing the major assault on civil liberties the Belgian is complaining about. I have to wonder if Belgium's large Muslim population isn't motivating that politician to posture for the cameras.

[Pekka]

it's the small baby steps that one needs to worry the most, because they are invisible, and 'acceptable'. One day we will wake up in a place where I'm not allowed to do my morning blow and kill an immigrant in my backyard. I don't want to live if this will be the trend. I need my morning kills.

[Tattila the Hun]

How much freedom would you be willing to sacrifice? Finland has so far been spared from bombings, while Britain has been target for IRA for years. They know what they are up against, and they still feel this legistlation would be too much.

[Pekka]

Is this question for me? If it's for me, none. Sure lot of people would shout at me and spit to my face saying I don't know anything because I haven't been personally connected to these strikes. Then again, I don't feel like people like that should be in charge of policy making. Terrorists don't hate our freedom. We hate our freedom.

[Colonâ„¢]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I'm not seeing the major assault on civil liberties the Belgian is complaining about. I have to wonder if Belgium's large Muslim population isn't motivating that politician to posture for the cameras.

He's a liberal who has spoken out against the multicultural ideal. His party is tending to anti-immigration and they were against voting rights to non-Belgians from outside the EU (which includes a lot of muslims) in local polls. I've also never known the party to pander to any kind of 'muslim interest' (in so far this exists over here) so my guess is that he's genuinely concerned about civil liberties. (as am I)

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The British legislation seems pretty balanced. It allows magistrates to act immediately but requires then to go to a judge as soon as possible for minor things while the major stuff the judge still must approve ahead of time. It even includes a sunset clause.

Confining people without due process is a violation of the Magna Carta.

[Provost Harrison]

Tell that to His Toniness, he does what the hell he likes. He went to war in Iraq despite the fact that it was unpopular. And his reply? 'You shouldn't have elected me at the last election then'. Even though this was never an issue on the cards in 2001, and the Tories would have done exactly the same (they have proven themselves to be extremely loyal to Blair).

And this is democracy?

[Az]

I only see that the period of house arrest is extended to 7 days.... what's so dangerous about that? ( no slippery slope arguments please)

[Colonâ„¢]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Confining people without due process is a violation of the Magna Carta.

[Pekka]

Azazel, nothing I guess in those terms, however it shows a tendency, where new methods are approved, methods that in the eyes of democratic justice can not be approved. You know if that really happens, the actual electronic tapping or what ever, no one gets bruises in it and it's no sweat thing, but like I said earlier, it's not THIS one particular, but the idea breaking the code that is dangerous, and if it is seen as approved, it only says next thing can be done also. Baby steps. You have to really ask, in front of terrorism, what the hell is this going to do to help fighting it, SERIOUSLY? My guess is nada, so why pushing this code breaking law int he first place? It should be mega ****ing important to even suggest such changes.

Of course this doesn't have anything to do with bashing the Brits. This is mostly theoretical rambling. It's not this particular case that worries me, it is that this can be done ANYWHERE, even in places that thinks they are the bastion of justice and ****. In here, this could happen. There prolly wouldn't be a single street protest about it either. That is what REALLY worries me. No one gives a ****, it's like the people are more educated in some areas, but in other matters they never passed the first grade. People won't fight over this in the big scale, or even further upgrades of security regulations that makes their life more difficult and terorists can cream their pants few more times. Limiting ANY kind of freedoms, in trade off for fighting terror is bull****. What you get is more bureocracy, more bull**** business with incompetent people, more mix ups, more everything, but not any real results, or even partial results. I guess we have become too comfortable because we just change the channel and forget about it. 'this doesn't concern me'. Yes it does.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Colon


He's a liberal who has spoken out against the multicultural ideal. His party is tending to anti-immigration and they were against voting rights to non-Belgians from outside the EU (which includes a lot of muslims) in local polls. I've also never known the party to pander to any kind of 'muslim interest' (in so far this exists over here) so my guess is that he's genuinely concerned about civil liberties. (as am I)

I take it you mean that they're against allowing non-citizens to vote? I don't see that as either a liberal or conservative issue. A person should become a fully naturalized citizen before being allowed to vote, or you may eventually see tourists going from country to country voting wherever they please.

[Az]

Confining people without due process is a violation of the Magna Carta.

why is this a violation of due process, in any other way than arresting people for 24 hours?

[Colonâ„¢]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


I take it you mean that they're against allowing non-citizens to vote? I don't see that as either a liberal or conservative issue. A person should become a fully naturalized citizen before being allowed to vote, or you may eventually see tourists going from country to country voting wherever they please.

They were against allowing people who are neither Belgian citizens nor citizens from another EU country to vote in local polls. (all EU-members are required to allow citizens from elsewhere in the EU, but living in their country, to vote in their local polls anyway)

I didn't say it was a liberal or conservative issue: it's an example to illustrate Dewael's comments probably weren't motivated by the muslim constituency.