MPs Revolt on Terror Bill

The Independent are reporting that 10 more Labour MPs plan to revolt over plans to detain terrorist suspects without charge for 42 days. Many readers may think that extending the deadline is necessary, but it isn't. The 42 day figure is made up and is just a larger number than 28 and less than 90.

What is really required is that there be no maximum. The police should be able to hold a suspect for as long as they can prove to a judge that they need to. As it stand the police need to appeal to a judge to extent the limit up to a maximum of 28 days. So why do we need that maximum time limit? If the judge agrees that the police should continue to hold the suspect then they should be allowed to hold the suspect. Providing an arbitrary limit serves no purpose.

Positive News From Venice

Two stories have emerged from a meeting in Venice of the six largest EU members. The first is that security officials have backed a plan to profile mosques across Europe to try and prevent Islamist clerics from radicalising young Muslims. The increasing threat from home-grown Islamists has shown that more needs to be done. Just one example would be the Finsbury Park Mosque where Abu Hamza was allowed to preach hatred for years before anything was done.

The second piece of good news is that John Reid has called for a changing in the Human Rights Laws to reflect the nature of the war with Islamists. He said:

We need to work to modernise the law - still protecting human rights and still providing equity and justice - but reflecting the reality of the conflicts and struggles we now face.

...

The right to security, to the protection of life and liberty, is and should be the basic right on which all others are based. Now, more than ever, it should be the fundamental starting point of all our principles and practices across Europe.

With John Reid stepping down next month, let's hope his successor will act on his words and reform the Human Rights Laws so that our rights to safety and security are treated with at least as much importance as the "right" of criminals and terrorists.

Naturally, Human Rights groups are not happy. Shami Chakrabarti, from Liberty, is quoted by the BBC News as saying:

In this struggle, we have to work with allies around the world to make sure they up their game on human rights because terrorism is being bred in countries which have the worst human rights records.

Obviously, Ms Chakrabarti doesn't watch the news and has failed to spot that many Islamists are being bred right here in Britain. Unless, of course, Liberty think Britain have the worst human rights records.

And here's something for all the BBC bias watchers. Note how early the BBC chooses to quote Ms Chakrabarti's comments. Even before quoting what John Reid had said (which is what the article is actually about) three paragraphs are devoted to Liberty's response. Why place the response before the actual statement? Surely it isn't to ensure that people read Liberty's point of view before that of John Reid? Surely it isn't to ensure that Chakrabarti is above the fold?