Charles Clarke: 'Ordinary people have the right to be protected'

As I reported here Blair is mounting a campaign, that he began yesterday in a series of email exchanges, to argue that critics are wrong when they condemn his record on defending civil liberties.

The theme has been continued today by Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, who has produced a fourteen page rebuttal of a Simon Carr piece, that attacked Labour's record on this issue.

The problem with Mr Clarke's arguments - a condensed version of which can be found here - is that a cursory Google search can prove that most of what he is saying is untrue.

For instance, he argues:

Or what about this statement: "People wearing satirical T-shirts in a 'designated area' may be arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. The City of London is a permanently 'designated area'." Wrong again, Mr Carr. There is no such provision in any Prevention of Terrorism Act. Nor is there any law against bad taste in T-shirts provided they do not, for example, incite murder.

This can easily be proven to be false, by looking here:

Police arrested a 20-year-old gamekeeper for wearing a "Bollocks to Blair" T-shirt at a game fair last weekend.

Charlotte Denis, 20, a gamekeeper from Gloucestershire, was stopped by police as she left the Countryside Alliance stand because of the "offensive" slogan.

Clarke also states:

Mr Carr's most ridiculous statement is: "The presumption of innocence is no longer a fixed legal principle." This is nonsense. In this country, you are innocent of an offence until proven guilty.

This is palpable nonsense. The government have already introduced the right to hold anyone suspected of terrorism subject to house arrest without trial.

Amnesty International UK director Kate Allen attacked new measures allowing the Government to place terror suspects under house arrest, saying ministers should “show some faith” in the courts rather than locking up suspects indefinitely.

She said: “However he puts it, the Home Secretary is giving himself the power to place anyone in the UK under house arrest, without charge or trial, based on secret evidence - UK citizens included. The Government is still sidestepping the law courts, still detaining people on secret evidence - only people will now be detained in their homes rather than at Belmarsh prison. The Home Secretary should show some faith in the justice system. If someone has done something wrong, charge them and give them a fair trial. Locking them in their homes is not the alternative.”

And then, finally, Clarke hits on Blair's recurring theme:

Don't let us confuse the presumption of innocence with the urgent need to prevent acts ranging from antisocial behaviour to terrorism.

What's to confuse? I would argue that one is entitled to a presumption of innocence whether suspected of anti-social behaviour or terrorism. Mr Clarke seems to make some distinction.

It is here that he undermines his own protestations of reasonableness. He appears to be arguing that there are, indeed, situations in which our need to be protected outweighs the need for a presumption of innocence.

He concludes with a piece of classic Blair speak:

Ordinary people also have the right to be protected.

This is simply a variation of Blair's claim that people have a civil right not to be blown up by terrorists; a claim that is so deluded that one has to wonder if Blair even knows what civil rights are.

Now, I obviously have a profound wish not to be blown up by terrorists, but it's ludicrous to call it a right; as there is no court anywhere in the land that can uphold it.

The idea that I can hold up my "Get Out Of Jail Free" card to a potential suicide bomber and say, "Oh, you can't detonate that while I'm on the train as I have a right not to be blown up" is simply farcical; and betrays the intellectual bankruptcy of Blair's argument.

And that is the crux of the matter. Clarke and Blair are removing our civil rights and giving us nothing in return.

By their own admission the introduction of ID cards and various other laws they are demanding would not have prevented 7-7. So, why do they need them again?

Most of us accept that we live in a dangerous world and make a calculated risk assessment each time we journey on the London tube, working on the assumption- and the hope - that it is still statistically unlikely that we will come to any harm.

If we can continue to go about our business uncowed, it is not unreasonable that we ask the government not to tamper with our rights, rights that the men and women of this country fought in Normandy to ensure that we enjoyed.

Rights that, I would argue, are not ours to give away.

Tags: Clarke, Home Secretary, Blair, civil, rights, ID cards, terrorists, terrorism,