Author: David Landon Cole

The Counter-terrorism Bill and coroners

Posted on by David Landon Cole

Section 42 (4) (b) (ii) of the Counter-Terrorism Bill, as it seeks to extend detention without charge to forty-two days, has attracted some considerable criticism. Unfortunately, it is not the only part of the bill that is, at best, distinctly ill-considered and with considerable scope for abuse. Serious consideration must also be given to clauses 64 and 65, which can be found on page 50 of this PDF of the bill. Clause 64 allows the Home Secretary to issue a certificate requiring an inquest to be held without a jury or discharging a jury mid-inquest. Clause 65 allows the Home Secretary to discharge a coroner and appoint a coroner of their own choosing. The two powers can be exercised simultaneously; that is to say, the Home Secretary would have the power, if they thought the an inquest would embarrass the government, to discharge the jury and the coroner and have the inquest started again without a jury and with a coroner of the Home Secretary’s choosing.

Inquests are unusual in English law in that they are the only inquisitorial proceeding, as opposed to the adversarial form that every other legal proceeding takes.

It is worth remembering that there are two main objections to the provision for forty-two days’ detention provided for in S42 (4) (b) (ii). The first is deontological; the period of time that any entity or person acting under the law (ultimately dependent on Weber’s definition of the state) should detain anyone else should be kept to the absolute minimum as the potential exists that, before trial, the person is innocent and so their detention is unjust. It is the same logic that insists justice should be speedy; detention before charge should be speedy1.

The second is utilitarian. While I’m sure some people will disagree with me1, I do not think that the current government is an evil monster that wants to abolish all our civil liberties. However, I do not think that the current government should hand a carte blanche to every single, future government. The risks and potential harms of the 42 days’ detention, and the deeply unsatisfactory safeguards – that people could be taken off the street if they threatened a future government (say, 41 days before an election) and held incommunicado – far outweight any potential benefit. Liberty make that point very well in this briefing document (PDF).

I feel the same applies to S64 and S65. Firstly, the idea that someone in the executive should be able to wander into a judicial proceeding and change things is opening the process up to abuse. It is different from making provisions for national security – things can be heard in camera – and, in any case, it should not be possible to change things in the middle of the proceeding, but only a priori. Secondly, the risks are significant as they would allow interference, as I have said, and set a worrying precedent for expansion.

If nothing else, connections will be made between a stroppy Oxfordshire coroner, a move to Gloucestershire for repatriating the bodies of people who have died in Afghanistan and Iraq, a stroppy Gloucestershire coroner and then this bill; it does look as if the Government is trying to cover its tracks.

xD.

1 – the definition, not the blogger.

Nothing about us without us: the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Posted on by David Landon Cole

Disabilism graphic courtesy of SCOPEThere are 650 million people with disabilities in the world; four-fifths of them live in the developing world. While much has been done in the developed world to improve the lot of people with disabilities and to bring us closer to equality, we are not there yet; things are that much worse in the developing world.

One year ago yesterday, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was opened for signing. It has been signed by 126 states, including the UK, but only ratified by seventeen: Bangladesh, Croatia, Cuba, El Salvador, Gabon, Guinea, Hungary, India, Jamaica, Mexico, Namibia, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, San Marino, South Africa and Spain.

What does the UNCRPD do?

Essentially, it builds on the Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities (1994) and the World Programme of Action on Disabled Persons (1982), neither of which are binding treaties.

In short, it says ‘nothing about us without us’; participating countries have to change laws and ban discriminatory customs and practices. Partly, these are promoting cultural changes, putting legal principles into place to support those changes, making physical and infrastructure changes and making funds available for those changes. The BBC enumerates some of the key principles:

  • Disabled people to have an equal right to life
  • Equal rights for disabled women and girls
  • Protection for children with disabilities
  • A right to own and inherit property, to control financial affairs and have equal access to financial services
  • Disabled people not to be deprived of their liberty “unlawfully or arbitrarily”
  • Medical or scientific experiments without consent to be banned
  • An end to enforced institutionalisation
  • Freedom from exploitation, violence and abuse
  • A right to privacy and access to medical records
  • Countries to remove barriers to accessing the environment, transport, public facilities and communication
  • A right to independent living
  • Essential equipment to be made affordable
  • A right to an adequate standard of living and social protection
  • An end to discrimination relating to marriage, family and personal relationships
  • Equal access to education
  • An end to discrimination in the job market
  • A right to equal participation in public life
  • A right to participate in cultural life
  • Developing countries to be assisted to put the convention into practice

So what?

If another three states ratify, the treaty will start to come into force. None of the above should be controversial; however, there is a concern that the UK government may not want to ratify the treaty because of the right not to live in an institution.

What do we do?

The disability charity, SCOPE, are asking us all to give the government a nudge and make sure that it is ratified without exemption or qualification by the end of the year. There is a petition at the Number Ten website that reads “We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in full, without reservation or limitation, by December 2008”. Please take a moment to sign it. More information is available on the SCOPE webpage.

xD.

Nadine Dorries on abortion

Posted on by David Landon Cole

Nadine Dorries has posted another attack on an MP who supports abortion encouraging people to vote solely on that issue; this time, it is Barbara Follett.

In order to receive funding they have to support Labour party values, and be pro-abortion

This means that any potential candidate of faith, ie, Jewish, Christian, Sikh, Muslim or Hindu would not qualify, which makes the list discriminatory

Correct me if I’m wrong, but that says that every person of religious faith opposes abortion. Quite apart from the insult to every religion other than the five mentioned (id est is never the same as exempli gratia; they mean ‘that is to say’ and ‘for the sake of example’ respectively), it ignores the reality of the situation. It is quite remarkable that Ms Dorries has listed only five of the top ten religions in terms of adherents. There are (according to the Christian Science Monitor) 324 million Buddhists (about the population of the EU), along with 6.1 million members of the Baha’i faith, 5.3 million followers of Confucius, 4.9 million who identify with Jainism and 2.8 million people who go for Shinto.

Let’s look at the five religions that Ms Dorries mentions.

1. Judaism

It doesn’t take long to realise that to say that being pro-abortion is incompatible with Judaism is rather foolish. The Mishnah (Oholot 7:8) says

If a woman is in hard travail, one cuts up the offspring in her womb and brings it forth member by member, because her life comes before the life of her foetus. But if the greater part has proceeded forth, one may not set aside one person for the sake of saving another

There is debate about whether the second sentence prohibits abortion after half-term or until the baby is half-delivered; there is no debate about whether abortion can be permitted under Jewish law. More specifically, the Rabinincal Assembly’s Committee on Jewish Law and Standards< endorses the position of Rabbis Bokser and Abelson:

[A]n abortion is justifiable if a continuation of pregnancy might cause the mother severe physical or psychological harm, or where the fetus [sic] is judged by competent medical opinion as severely defective

The Union for Reform Judaism says that

any decision should be left up to the woman within whose body the fetus is growing

I have highlighted Judaism because it is the first on the list and it very neatly shows that within all religion and, indeed, all belief systems there is variation.

2. Christianity

Thomas Aquinas and Popes Innocent III and Gregory XIV said that until the mother could feel the baby kick and move, the baby had no soul and could be aborted; after the quickening, it could not. Current Roman Catholic teaching is mostly opposed to abortion. The Southern Baptist Convention only came out against abortion in the early eighties.

The Episcopal Church, Presbyterian Church (USA), United Church of Christ and United Methodist Church all have statements in favour of abortion.

3. Sikhism

Sikhism doesn’t directly deal with abortion – at least, the Guru Granth Sahib doesn’t – and the practice of abortion in parts of India, particularly if the foetus is female, suggest that there is no block there, either

4. Islam

The traditional Islamic view is that abortion is permitted up until 120 days, I believe; alternative views are 40 days or ‘quickening’. Depending on which date you choose, that is when the soul is given to the baby. Islam allows for abortion

5. Hinduism

I don’t know much about Hinduism, and therefore will merely provide this quote from Hinduism Today:

The Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University does not take a formal unchanging political or religious stance on the issue of abortion. They advise that each case requires unique consideration. The final decision will be based on a long series of choices made by the woman on her lifestyle, morals and values. Usually, the choices that created the unwanted pregnancy in the first place have been irrational or emotional ones, not the mature commitment motherhood needs. The Brahma Kumaris counsel those facing an abortion decision, both man and woman, to understand that by abortion they do not escape responsibility for their actions. When both the parents have fully understood the seriousness of the choice, the University would support the right to make their own decision.

I am quite sure that Ms Dorries is aware of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. If not, it pretty much ‘does what it says on the tin’. Here’s their membership list:

Rabbinical Assembly; United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism; Women’s League for Conservative Judaism; The Episcopal Church; American Ethical Union National Service Conference; Society for Humanistic Judaism; Presbyterians Affirming Reproductive Options (PARO); Women’s Ministries; Washington Office; Reconstructionist Judaism; Jewish Reconstructionist Federation; Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association; Central Conference of American Rabbis; North American Federation of Temple Youth; Union for Reform Judaism; Women of Reform Judaism, The Federation of Temple Sisterhoods; Women’s Rabbinic Network of Central Conference of American Rabbis; Justice and Witness Ministries; General Board of Church and Society; General Board of Global Ministries, Women’s Division; Unitarian Universalist Association; Unitarian Universalist Women’s Federation; Young Religious Unitarian Universalists; Continental Unitarian Universalist Young Adult Network; American Jewish Committee; American Jewish Congress; Anti-Defamation League; Catholics for a Free Choice; Christian Lesbians Out (CLOUT); Church of the Brethren Women’s Caucus; Disciples for Choice; Episcopal Urban Caucus; Episcopal Women’s Caucus; Hadassah, WZOA; Jewish Women International; Lutheran Women’s Caucus; Methodist Federation for Social Action; NA’AMAT USA; National Council of Jewish Women; Women’s American ORT; YWCA of the USA

I think that shows, pretty effectively, that religious faith does not necessarily entail opposition to abortion. However, even if there was only one religious person in the entire world who honestly believed that abortion was acceptable, Ms Dorries would not be able to say that their faith was lesser or wrong. To do so would be, in her own words, discriminatory.

Moving on, Ms Dorries says of Ms Follett that

72% of her constituents want the upper limit reduced to 20 weeks

That’s interesting. On her previous post, Ms Dorries said that “as many as 72 per cent, wish to see the upper limit at which abortion takes place, reduced from 24 to 20 weeks”. Unless a survey was carried out that focused on the voters of Stevenage, it seems hard to say that 72% of Barbara Follett’s constituents want the upper limit reduced without making a statement that is statistically invalid.

Ms Dorries then asks

Will she represent their views at the next vote, or her own?

As I said on my previous post, an MP’s job is not to act as a proxy for the aggregate views of their constituents. As Edmund Burke said, “Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion”.

One last thing:

“Barbara Follett is the founder of Emily’s list”

No, she isn’t. Emily’s List was founded by Ellen Malcolm in 1984 in the United States of America. Barbara Follett founded Emily’s List UK in 1993. A small issue, but worth flagging. Congratulations to Barbara Follett.

As I have said before, I respect Ms Dorries’ position, although I do not share it. I have been branded a religious fundamentalist in the past for saying, in my SU meeting, that there were legitimate objections to abortion. I still believe that. However, I find Ms Dorries’ way of presenting the argument to be based on flawed logic, assertion and obfuscation.

xD.

Update 2045: Unity at the Ministry of Truth has noticed Nadine’s post as well – I recommend it!

Edmund Burke on Nadine Dorries

Posted on by David Landon Cole

Nadine Dorries, the Conservative MP for Mid Beds and doyenne of the anti-abortion movement in Parliament, has been pressing for further restrictions on abortion for some time. I have no doubt that she sincerely holds those beliefs. However, it does seem that the strength with which she holds those beliefs is clouding her judgement. As various bloggers, including Tim Ireland of Bloggerheads, Ben Goldacre of Bad Science and the Guardian, Book Drunk, Devil’s Kitchen and Unity from the Ministry of Truth, have pointed out, Ms Dorries has played fast and loose with facts and statistics and seems – as I am a charitable sort – to be demonstrating confirmation bias over this issue.

On her website1, Ms Dorries says something that is not just wrong-headed, but dangerous:

As a result of a number of polls, we know that the majority of the public, as many as 72 per cent, wish to see the upper limit at which abortion takes place, reduced from 24 to 20 weeks. Many MPs, however, choose to use Parliament as a place to pander to their own preference, or ideology, rather than to represent the will of the people.

What Ms Dorries is saying there is that MPs should be proxies for referenda on every issue. Quite apart from the weaseling of ‘belief’ into ‘preference’ and ‘philosophy’ into’ ideology, this notion of ‘the will of the people’ or ‘the general will’ is a dangerous one indeed. It should be easy enough to see how Ms Dorries’ stance could be parlayed into ‘preference’ or ‘ideology’, quite apart from the problems in identifying this ‘will of the people’; certainly, it is not Ms Dorries alone who may choose the will of the people. She would do well to remember Edmund Burke’s words in his Speech to the Electors of Bristol:

Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

MPs are elected to legislate and to scrutinise based not on the whim of the people, but based on easier access to more information, the time and will to process and use that information honestly, and to come to a reasoned decision. Equally, an MP should not encourage dog-whistle politics. No matter how important you might consider abortion to be, regardless of your position in the debate, you cannot say that it is more important than every other issue combined. That is, however, what Ms Dorries is encouraging people to do:

Each day, I am going to highlight MPs who may need to think very seriously when voting on the issue of reducing the upper limit to 20 weeks, because if they don’t, they may see their majorities wiped out at the next election.

Although the issue is serious, the manner of expression – this above and to the exclusion of all else – cheapens political discourse and will lead to ill-considered judgements if Ms Dorries’ is successful in her aim. It favours fanatic who obsesses over a single issue rather than someone who would take the broader view; it encourages people to vote with their hearts and not their heads. It is, in short, an abrogation of an elected representative’s duty to make an appeal to base instinct rather than reasoned judgement

The full text of Burke’s speech is available courtesy of the University of Chicago. It is short, at a little over six hundred words, but is well worth reading.

xD.

1 – it is not a blog. A blog allows comments; Dorries’ website, even the bit that’s updated regularly, does not allow comments. Interestingly, Burke says something about that too, after a fashion: “it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents”.

In response to Dave Hill

Posted on by David Landon Cole

Having been in the ‘set’ position for some time now, the starting pistol has fired and the candidates for Mayor are away. Unfortunately, Dave Hill – a blogger that I like and have a lot of time for – makes the mistake of thinking that Boris and Ken are somehow close on policies:

as a battleground of ideas it’s fairly small.

There is much more at stake here than emphasis, nuance and weighting.

Transport is a real issue that differentiates Ken and Boris.

The big divide so far has been over bus conductors; Boris wants them reintroduced, Ken thinks putting £100m on bus fares is not a good idea, particularly for those suffering from transport poverty. Ken has the vision and track record of pushing forward new, innovative transport policies – like the C-charge and London Overground – that will continue to improve London’s transport.

Affordable housing is a real issue that differentiates Ken and Boris.

The issue on housing is, essentially, how to deal with recalcitrant boroughs that don’t want to build affordable housing. Where Ken would compel, Boris wants to ask nicely and hope. That doesn’t mean riding rough-shod over local views, but accepting that the interests of the city as a whole have to before those of a given borough.

Carbon charging is a real issue that differentiates Ken and Boris.

Where Ken has made concrete improvements on London’s carbon output by promoting hybrid-drive and fuel-cell buses, the LEZ and congestion charging, Boris Johnson praised bush for “scrumpling up” the Kyoto protocol, has called ken’s low emission zone “punitive and draconian” and would scrap the western extenson zone of the C-charge itself.

Competence is a real issue that differentiates Ken and Boris.

The hole in Boris’ budget is important in how the mistake came about. He assumed that every bus route in London was similar to the two heritage routes that have conductors. They are not; it is fairly obviously a wrong assumption that shows a lack of understanding of London. Boris’ tendency towards gaffes could also damage London; a repeat of the Liverpool incident on a trade mission could do real damage to London plc.

What similarities there are between Ken and Boris are in no small part due to the manifest successes of Ken’s programme over the last eight years. The C-charge was met with howls of protests but, now, Boris cannot say that he will scrap it (although he would reduce its size, as I mentioned). It is completely wrong to think that a vote for Ken and a vote for Boris will make no difference four years down the line. There are concrete, policy differences that will make a big difference; equally, the tone of the Mayor can make a difference to London, both in terms of promoting cohesiveness within the city and promoting the city overseas as a place to visit, work and invest.

xD.

Talking to al-Qaeda

Posted on by David Landon Cole

Jonathan Powell has indicated that we should talk to al-Qaeda, making a comparison with Northern Ireland.

In Ireland, it was fairly straightforward, if not to identify, to delimit the people who controlled the IRA. The brass was known and there were contacts throughout the eighties between the governments of both sides of the Irish Sea and the paramilitaries. There were times when the parties were so far apart that they were totally irreconcilable. However, changes in all parties meant that there was the potential for discussion and cooperation. Without lines of communication, it would have been a lot harder to gauge the attitudes of the opposing sides.

The buzz-acronym around the military is C4ISTAR. That is command, control, computers, communication, intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaisance. It describes the functions that a military must cover to carry out a given operation or set of operations. While some of it does not apply to some or all of the Troubles – computers being the obvious example – it is not hard to see that, within the constraints of reality, the IRA approximated the British army in its function-set.

Note that it does not include mission definition or objective quality. It does, however, indicate that there is a command structure; not just that people lower down the chain will do as they’re told but that they will not do anything unless they are told to do something.

The very fact that contacts took place in this manner with the IRA shows the difference when dealing with al-Qaeda. It is a network of organisations and of networks, that act in different manners depending on the situations in which they find themselves. While there may be a common eschatology, there is no equivalent of the army council with which to deal. Rather, different bits can draw on the philosophical motivations and practical resources – planning and materiel – as they see fit.

Talking to one’s enemies makes sense. The ‘red phones’ between Moscow and Washington is probably the best known example, but NATO is talking to the Taliban in Afghanistan. The most common examples, however, are embassies, legations and foreign missions.

There is no equivalent of the Army Council in al-Qaeda; there is no one controlling body that can order a ceasefire or a truce. As I said, al-Qaeda is an ideology and perhaps a methodology and, although it might seek to be, is not a polity. However, there are polities and groups under the al-Qaeda umbrella with which you can deal; as I mentioned, some elements of the Taliban in Afghanistan are being engaged but this will not affect other conflicts where different grievances lead to the ideology and methodology combining in different ways. This means that there will not be co-ordination and the benefits of scale for al-Qaeda-inspired groups, but that there is no, one unit that will end things. Given that some of the techniques of asymmetric warfare are very widely known, it is not hard to see that the advantage here is with the many-headed hydra.

There is an interesting comparison of no particular significance other than illustration between the IRA and al-Qaeda and Catholic and Sunni hierarchies; the Pope can give orders that are followed the way down, while a given imam is one of many sources of influence and authority. I don’t think this post particularly revelatory or that Mr Powell would disagree, but it is worth stressing both that the parallels between IRA and al-Qaeda only go so far and it would be not only wrong but dangerously wrong to see al-Qaeda as a single campaign.

xD.

Bendy buses

Posted on by David Landon Cole

I have described myself in the past as a critical friend of the BBC. I find it really very annoying when Auntie Beeb can’t be bothered to do its research. Indeed, the BBC News website says that Ken, should he be re-elected, will not be ordering any new bendy buses. That much is true; what is manifestly false is that he has not announced this recently. The Beeb says that

The mayor of London has revealed that he will not be ordering any further fleets of bendy buses. Ken Livingstone said they were only introduced for a small number of routes and there were no plans to put more on the roads.

which manifestly ignores the many statements from Ken about having introduced bendy buses on a few routes where they were appropriate. To say that new bendy bus routes were ever planned is, frankly, wrong on a simple point of fact. I admit here to a bias. My balance is bad – clinically bad – and I find it difficult to use the upstairs on buses. Not impossible, but difficult. On the Routemasters, it was impossible; the advantage of having modern double-deckers is that everyone can use them, even if their mobility is particularly restricted.

As the BBC doesn’t seem to want to report it, I will. Boris Johnson’s transport policy has two holes in it. One totals £20m – that’s twenty million pounds – while the other comes in at a remarkable £100m – that’s one hundred million pounds. This doesn’t come from Ken’s campaign, but from independent parties. There is a great, big hole in one of the candidates’ accounting that said candidate has simply failed to explain. That is the same candidate who, when talking about educating his children in state schools, said

because we live in Islington, I extracted them

which, if nothing else, is an almighty insult to a teachers in Islington.

One of the Mayor’s duties is promoting London overseas as a place for investment. I do not think that someone who wanders in with such clumsy offensiveness is necessarily the person that we would want promoting London abroad; Boris is far too likely to cause a diplomatic incident, with the result for London being lost investment.

xD.

Taxation and the nature of the state

Posted on by David Landon Cole

Tiberius Gracchus writes about Chris Wickham and the use of methods of taxation to analyse the nature of a state or other polity. The argument certainly has legs and I think a comparative analysis of taxation systems could be an effective means of categorising states; however, it will not be a primary comparator.

I should say here that I have not read Wickham’s book, so I may be grossly unfair here.

The Spanish Empire in Latin America (I’m leaving the Spanish Indies aside) underwent various administrative changes between their origins in the sixteenth century and independence in the nineteenth century. These ranged from means of exploiting local resources (including humans) as effectively as possible through to complex bureaucratic and impositive systems that acted as states because of their distance from metropolitan Spain. These changes were brought about for various reasons – the need to develop Buenos Aires, preventing Viceroys from becoming too powerful, pacifying criollos by granting them audiencias. At various times, different amounts of money, in relative and absolute terms, flowed to Spain, in part due to Spain’s need for cash to fund its various activities (including trying to hang on to the Philippines).

These changes never dealt with the legacy of previous attempts to cement Spanish rule in Latin America. The expansionist nature of Spanish colonisation of Latin America was based, in no small part, on the religious fervour of Ferdinand and Isabela, codified by the Inter Caetera Papal Bull, that saw the Christianisation of southern Spain – al-Andalus – and the New World as goals that justified all manner of action and reward, including the pillaging of those areas. This resulted, from the beginnings of empire, in local authorities being a mixture of civil, military and religious power. Anyone connected to the chain of command had control over the minds of local inhabitants in a particularly potent manner; the stage was set for the caudillismo that still plagues parts of Latin America in the form of today’s clientelism.

However, it is much easier to see that with hindsight. Many of the actions that were taken in the Spanish Empire ended up reinforcing the problem and making it easier for sections to to be hived off. Not least of these was the setting up of audiencias below the viceregal level in an attempt to counter the grievances that led to local bosses setting taking too much power to themselves that ended up consolidating the problem. In short, the nature of the taxation system is based on how the state is perceived by the taxer not how the state actually is. This can be further qualified by the fact that states rarely give up forms of raising revenue; the federal income tax in the US might be an indicator of a solidified, federal polity when it was in fact brought in to raise funds during the Civil War. The use of taxation in this instance is descriptive rather than prescriptive, and needs to be used as such in analyses of states.

xD.

Interview with Ken Livingstone

Posted on by David Landon Cole

I was able to interview Ken Livingstone this morning following the launch of his transport manifesto. Unfortunately, announcements kept coming over the tannoy, hence the odd cutting and jumping.Dave Hill also spoke with Ken, and his interview is available here along with thoughts on the Mayor’s transport manifesto here. There is more on the manifesto from Ken’s own website.

More tomorrow.

xD.