Friday, July 11, 2008 

David Davis and the end of Labour.

The coverage of the end of the Haltemprice and Howden by-election has been as dismal not just as the weather but also the coverage with which it began. We were told by those comforting journalists inside the Westminster bubble that this was a brave but barmy decision by a vain loner that was doomed to failure. It's ended with it being described as a brave but barmy decision by a vain loner that has failed. No doubt that makes those that began the coverage in such a way feel that they were right all along; that the public doesn't give two figs for civil liberties, let alone the human rights of "terrorist suspects", and that Davis was only one step removed from the actual loonies that fought the by-election alongside him.

The number of those that turned out in H&H, despite the weather, despite some students being away, and despite the lure of the Yorkshire show says otherwise. Turnout was at 35%, which although hardly great is not bad for a by-election, and especially one fought effectively on a single issue, as this one was. It's worth remembering that at the last election H&H was one of the Liberal Democrats' top targets, with Davis at the top of their so-called decapitation strategy. He won with a majority of 5,000, so this wasn't a safe seat until the Lib Dems stood down and cowardly Labour refused to put up a candidate. That Davis tripled his majority shows how despite all the media blathering about complaining individuals in the constituency, there was still a groundswell of enthusiasm and support for his stand, and with the Greens taking second place, on a ticket of reducing the time suspects could be held down to a single week, it showed how the debate was by no means dead. Also worth pointing out is that even on the 35% turnout, Davis received a higher percentage of votes from the constituent electorate than Labour managed in 2005, who received just 22% of the popular vote.

It goes without saying that the big question still remains: has Davis's stand changed anything? The answer to that is both yes and no. Yes because more than any other recent politician or any recent political issue, he's directly reached out to the public themselves and tried to garner their opinions and views above those situated around Westminster. He's directly enthused many that were becoming cynical about the intrinsically selfish nature of politics: giving up your job as shadow home secretary, when in a couple of years' time you're almost certain to become the actual home secretary can be described as both principled and foolhardy as it has, but it also signalled a politician not on the make or above involving the actual people who elected him in the first place. It also has inspired a debate on 42 days, although not as wide a one as some of us initially hoped, but also on civil liberties as a whole. It was clear that Davis for a time had both Labour and the "popular" sections of the media running scared: first ensuring Brown responded to Davis's charges with a speech which failed to even mention him, and secondly humiliating the Sun without him having to even mention the name Kelvin MacKenzie. One day he was "Crazy Davis", then the next week he was praised by none other than the Sun's deputy editor, which is a reverse ferret that you can't help but applaud.

As for whether Davis has seriously challenged the prospects of 42 days getting onto the statute books, the verdict is much less clear cut. The Lords were always going to reject it, but as Martin Kettle pointed out this morning, Manningham-Buller has surely killed all chances of it passing this year now. Her position is almost undoubtedly shared by MI5 at large, and they seem to be furious, not at Davis or the Conservatives for blocking the legislation, but at Labour and Brown for playing politics with an issue they believe should be above such posturing. Davis alone though was never going to end the bill simply by resigning, but by doing so he surely has helped those who were previously sitting on the fence with deciding whether they should speak out or not.

What's more, he has also certainly succeeded, whether he rejoins the shadow cabinet or not, with formulating Tory policy if they do win the next election. No way can they now attempt to introduce an extension themselves, which despite the current position was always a possibility when you have the likes of George Osborne and Michael Gove who were suspicious of Davis and a leader who is trying his best to ape Blair with his friendly attitude towards the Murdoch press.

The biggest impact however will be strangely, but completely acceptably on Labour itself. It's not just been the dealing and bribing which won the vote in the first place, promising billions to the DUP and making clear that abortion won't be introduced in Northern Ireland, it's been their attitude towards Davis and those who oppose 42 days from the beginning. The loathsome Tony McNulty was at it again today, accusing Davis of vanity and then comparing him to Homer Simpson. It doesn't seem to occur to them that this is their last gasp, that it'll be them in a couple of years who'll be the ones going "Doh!" as the results pour in. In any event, being compared to Homer seems preferable to comparing yourself to Heathcliffe.

There have been so many issues which could have completely ostracised the left from Labour, whether it be their obsession with the private finance initiative, the desire to thrust business into education as much as they possibly can, the casual stealth breaking up of the health service and eventual selling off to the highest bidder, the abominable and murderous foreign policy post 9/11 and the kowtowing to the right-wing press, but after all those things, it's been not 90 days but 42 days that has finally caused the schism. We expected that from Blair in his last mad days, but we didn't from Gordon Brown. Back in 2005, I suspect many like myself voted Labour, not because we believed in the party or in those leading it, but because we had a decent local MP that had either voted against the war or had prevaricated before abstaining, as mine did, and had also opposed the worst anti-terror measures prior to 7/7. Compared to Michael Howard, Blair still seemed preferable on those grounds. That MP has now gone, as have many others, and repeating the vote this time would be a waste, not that we're going to make that mistake anyway.

John Kampfner writes in the Telegraph that some Labour MPs are now fearing a complete meltdown whenever the next election is called, and it's hard not to see that coming to pass, at least on a similar scale to the landslide in 97 against the Tories. It's not just the MPs themselves that are demoralised, it's those that put Labour there in the first place too. It may have taken 11 years, countless betrayals and policy blunders, and it's unfair on Gordon Brown, but I think it's safe to say that most have had enough. Most of all what's put me off has been the behaviour not of those who supported 42 days, but those who were actually opposed but are so bitterly partisan and patronising to the Tories for whichever reason that they've spent the entire Davis campaign wind-bagging and mocking despite sharing the exact same opinion as him. Davis was right: this was the time to say enough was enough. Enough is enough. Labour's time is up.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Share |

Tuesday, July 01, 2008 

Victimhood, Jill Saward and civil liberties.

The anger and thirst for change that victims of crime often display, and the power that they subsequently have because of their misfortune has been discussed here before. Unlike Helen Newlove however for example, Jill Saward has decided to go to the electorate with her concerns, rather than promoting them through the prism of a tabloid newspaper campaign, although it's worth mentioning Saward's first article was in the pages of the Sun. For that, she deserves the same credit and praise that David Davis received for his stand on civil liberties. Putting your money where your mouth is and being prepared to argue the case in public rather than through the media is a step up from hollow campaigns where it's unclear where the media brand ends and the political principles begin.

Saward couldn't really have chosen a more inappropriate beginning to her article on Comment is Free though:

Not all men are rapists or sexual predators.

It's just that only men are, and that only they are potential rapists or sexual predators. That is Saward's point, is it not?

It's worth putting in a little background here. Jill Saward was the woman raped in the "Ealing Vicarage" attack; her father was the vicar. The judge in the case when it came to court gave those responsible a longer sentence for the burglary than for the rape, and said that the "the trauma suffered by the victim was not so very great." Deplorable certainly, and Saward's campaigning since then has certainly helped many in similar circumstances to overcome or at least come to terms with what happened to them. It is perhaps worth noting though that Saward is married to a journalist; something that always helps with getting publicity for such a campaign.

What's more, Saward is standing on what she says is a true liberty platform, calling for people to be "safe at home, safe at work and safe on the street." In this, Saward has entered into the same sort of thinking which was has led to the current set of criminal justice policies in this country, which was ably identified recently by Ian Loader. As globalisation has undermined the previous utopian ideal of the government being able to provide a job for everyone for life, or being able to secure at the least a decent standard of living, something that for a distinct minority is still a dream, attention has instead turned to the idea that the government can and must provide another form of security, a physical one, at both all costs and all the time. This, too, is another utopian unachievable fantasy, which to even start to fulfil would require the government to be able to step in as soon as human nature begins to manifest itself, but is one which has been bought into because through otherwise draconian policies it can begin to be moved towards. This thinking was understandable when crime was at its peak, from which it has since sharply dropped, but as Loader notes, the public due to how the government has responded to the original concern now no longer believes the statistics that say it is has fallen, and the popular media, if not the public themselves, who now seem to be divided over whether prison works or not, still demand endless punitive crackdowns.

As a result, and with the rise of technology, this has inspired the view that all crime is both eminently solvable and that this process can be greatly helped by the latest scientific innovations. It matters little that these innovations, such as the DNA database, are insecure and far from infallible; when the victims' rights are forgotten, or when notable and powerful commentators constantly suggest that they're being forgotten, the potential for injustice through presumed progress greatly increases. Saward, far from being concerned that the DNA database, through holding the data of thousands of completely innocent individuals holds the possibility that someone completely innocent may one day be connected with a crime they didn't commit through potentially unquestionable evidence (and as MrPikeBishop points out in the comments, the Omagh bomb case, which subsequently collapsed with the low carbon copy DNA process being questioned, first identified a 14-year-old boy from Nottingham as prime suspect) is instead convinced that one of the best ways of of preventing, or at least solving crimes of a similar nature to what she suffered is to establish a universal DNA database.

Like with the other victims of crime which pursue change in order to attempt to stop what happened to them from occurring again, it can't be disputed that Saward's heart is in the right place; it's that the method she suggests is strewn with unknowables which could in the long run cause more harm than good. The problems with a universal DNA database are manifold: would such a database even work when there are 60 million profiles on it, without throwing out numerous false positives or identifying dozens of people that would have to be methodically eliminated? Would criminals not attempt to adapt to it by contaminating crime scenes? How would we react if someone was falsely accused and imprisoned on the basis of DNA evidence once we'd reached the universal stage? This is without going into how the 60 million profiles would get onto it in the first place, and whether all those entering the country, whether as tourists or to live here would be required to give samples before they were allowed in.

Saward's argument is also coloured by her view that this would somehow be righting the injustice of the innocent already on the database by adding everyone else that err, also happens to be innocent. This is both a logical fallacy and correcting an injustice with even more injustice, something which should always be resisted. It's also not entirely clear with Saward is actually arguing against a straw man; David Davis released his personal manifesto on Friday, which made clear that he wants the "1 million innocent" on the database removed and the serious criminals left off put on it. There obviously however has to be some sort of compromise on the removal of the data of the innocent, as I've suggested before, because of the undoubted use the database has provided in identifying some of the most serious unsolved cases of rape and murder, such as that of Sally Anne Bowman, whose mother incidentally was another who joined Helen Newlove in putting together a manifesto in oppositon to that of Davis's. Those arrested but never charged should still have their data taken from them to ensure that they are not potential suspects in any unsolved crime, but if no crime is subsequently linked to them after a period of a number of years then the information should be destroyed. This would be relatively easy to achieve, but whether we could trust the police to do so would be another matter.

Some in the comments have questioned Saward's data on those whom have been the victims of sexual attacks, but it's the data on those who have been found guilty through the use of the database which has been directly challenged by GeneWatch, in response to Gordon Brown's recent speech on Liberty which was obviously directed at David Davis but which failed to mention him. Their conclusions were (PDF):

• The figures cited by the Prime Minister refer to an estimate of DNA matches, not solved crimes;
• The reported matches are not actual matches obtained with individuals’ profiles retained on the NDNAD following acquittal or charges being dropped, but are an estimate based on a number of unverifiable assumptions;
• DNA matches are not successful prosecutions and many matches occur with the DNA of individuals who are not the perpetrator of the crime, including victims and passers-by, or are false matches

Saward's arguments are in fact symptomatic of the view that the "criminals" have all the rights and that the victims have none. This has always confused the rights of suspects who are innocent until proven guilty with the rights of those whose name the case is being brought in, but Saward goes one step further than they often do in questioning the right to silence, as she does on her website:

For example, if the police have reason to believe that a person may have driven a few miles over the speed limit, that person is obliged to tell the police where they were at the time of the alleged offence. They have to assist the police; otherwise they can be punished to the same extent as if it were proved they were responsible.

But if that person was suspected of stabbing a young man to death; that person has the right to remain silent. He or she does not have to tell the police where they were – or even provide an alibi. They do not have to assist the police at all and they are not punished for not doing so.

The right not to incriminate yourself is treated by some as a sacrosanct part of our civil liberties. Why?


I'd say that if Saward doesn't understand why that is then she doesn't understand the criminal justice system at all. It's for the prosecution to prove its case, not for the defendant to have to prove his innocence, especially when the state is all powerful and has all the resources at its disposal while the defendant potentially has none. The right to silence is a fundamental part of that.

The thing that rankles most about Saward's campaign and also that of Newlove's is the disingenuousness of their arguments, and especially their personal victim status. It's true that much more could be done for most of the victims of crime, but the answer is not a rebalancing of the system as it is now, but more care before and after trials itself for them. Saward herself is right to be aggrieved at how she was treated in court, but when it comes to Helen Newlove, for whom the CPS, the state and the media at large bent over backwards to help, to claim the same thing is to go beyond what the state can reasonably be expected to provide. Indeed, both expect the state to provide constant safety and protection, something that it simply can't deliver. And fundamentally, Saward's case is flawed from the very beginning with the idea that men rape because they can get away with it. Only the most pathological do so. The others rape either because they can at that moment in time, and don't think of the possibility of getting caught, or do so out of power, which overwhelms any idea that they may be caught. Anger about being a victim is never a good place to come from in changing policy, and when it also makes it more difficult for those opposed to be critical as a result, it increases the possibility of systematic injustice from otherwise good motives. That is why David Davis, or indeed the Green candidate, deserve support and not Jill Saward.

Related post:
Though Cowards Flinch - Outflanking David Davis... to the right

Labels: , , , , ,

Share |

About

  • This is septicisle
profile

Links

Powered by Blogger
and Blogger Templates