Slip shows Clarke's doubts on terror bill

[muriel_volestrangler]

Signs emerged today that Charles Clarke shared opposition doubts about the detention without trial of terror suspects for up to three months, as proposed yesterday in his draft anti-terrorism bill.
...
Mr Clarke's doubts were revealed by the accidental inclusion of an earlier draft in an "annex" to the letter. In a version of the letter later released to the press this annex had been removed. However, the slip will reignite speculation, fuelled by Sunday newspaper stories recently, that the prime minister regards Mr Clarke as too soft on civil liberties, and may replace him in a future reshuffle.
...
In the first draft of his letter, Mr Clarke said: "I think the case for some extension is clear, though I believe there is room for debate as to whether we should go as far as three months, and I am still in discussion with the police on this point."

But the correspondence actually sent reads: "It may be that you are convinced by the case for some extension but feel that three months is too great an extension. I would be interested in your views on this particular point."

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,15935,1571828,00.html

So, yet again, it's Blair that's the authoritarian bastard. HOw long, oh Lord, how long, until the Labour party can get rid of him?

Also, details of what's in the bill:

Encouraging and glorifying terrorism: Two offences, carrying a jail sentence of up to seven years. Covers published statements, including internet ones, which amount to the "direct or indirect encouragement" of terrorist acts or those which "glorify, exalt, or celebrate" such acts. Does not cover statements on events of more than 20 years ago; but some events are absent from the limit. Otherwise, 9/11 is "listed", the 1916 Easter Rising is not.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,15935,1571350,00.html

I know at least one web forum that is British-based and is giving serious thought to what it can allow members to say - they are international, and a few do occasionally support 9/11. Would supporting the assassination of Verwoerd in South Africa in 1966 count? The call by Pat Robertson to assassinate Chavez? What about Israel dropping one-tonne bombs in residential areas?

[muriel_volestrangler]

1. Matthew Parris takes the piss out of the proposals

and makes some good points too.

LIKE A DODGY auctioneer offloading family furniture in a distress sale, Charles Clarke fingers his hammer and moves from pile to pile of once-cherished items.

“Lot number 47: Ancient Liberties. Now what am I bid? Suspension of Habeas Corpus — three months? Will anyone give me three months’ detention without trial? The police tell me it’s worth three months, but I’ll take a lower bid to start us off — yes, you there, sir, in the Liberal Democrat hat: still sticking at 14 days? Come on, let’s get this sale moving. Have I no Tory bid? Downing Street’s getting twitchy . . . six weeks, somebody — a snip at six. Just 42 days — they’ll fly by in no time — I’ll swallow my pride and let it go at six. Going, going . . .”
...
I would not myself praise Archbishop Makarios, the Stern Gang, Jomo Kenyatta or even the perpetrators of the Boston Tea Party, but who seriously suggests that it should be a crime to glorify their struggles? Researchers more ingenious than I will find youthful speeches by the likes of Charles Clarke, Jack Straw, Peter Hain and probably Tony Blair too, glorifying terrorists. So the proposed law will include powers for government to “certify” past terrorist movements who may, or may not, be “glorified”.

What madness is this? Are ministers and civil servants to work through history books, ticking boxes? Are we to have (retrospectively) approved terrorists? Truly, as Paul Flynn MP has said, under new Labour “only the future is certain; the past is always changing”.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1065-1784345,00.html