November 23, 2003
WHERE'D HE READ THAT, THE NATION?:
Blair plans new laws to curb civil liberties: UK wants similar powers to controversial US Patriot Act (James Cusick, 11/23/03, Sunday Herald)
SWEEPING new emergency legal powers to deal with the aftermath of a large terrorist attack in Britain are being considered by the government.The measures could potentially outlaw participation in a protest march, such as last week's demonstrations during President Bush's state visit, making it, in effect, a criminal offence to criticise government policy.
In an attempt to give the UK government similar powers to those rushed through in the US after the 9/11 attack on New York in 2001, it is understood that a beefed-up version of current civil contingencies law is being considered. It will allow the government to bypass or suspend key parts of the UK's human rights laws without the authority of parliament.
In the US, the Patriot Act has been widely condemned by civil rights groups throughout the US. Many lawyers have blamed the Patriot Act as an excuse for eroding civil rights that dated back to the founding principles of the US constitution.
That the UK government is considering seeking similar power in a crisis situation indicates the heightened level of concern following the terrorist bombings in Istanbul.
Somebody wanna hand Mr. Cusick a copy of the Constitution and the Patriot Act--such a law would be unconstitutional here. Posted by Orrin Judd at November 23, 2003 2:20 PM
And under the principle of parliamentary supremacy, it would be unconstitutional there as well.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at November 23, 2003 3:31 PMHarry:
They intend to put the new law through Parliament. Thus, under the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy, it would be all too legal.
Posted by: Peter B at November 24, 2003 4:52 AMThe Constitution sanctions quartering soldiers in private residences in wartime as defined by law, the holding of a person to answer for a crime without indictment by the Military or Militia 'when in actual service in time of War or public danger', the suspension of Habeus Corpus when 'in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public safety may require it."
Congress may 'provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.'
Individual States may engage in War if 'actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.'
Quite a bit there. However, I don't see 'quashing dissent' unless it rises to the level of insurrection or obstruction of emergency services.
Posted by: Noel at November 25, 2003 9:21 PM