Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
What Charles Clarke wants, however, is to lock someone up *without* charge and possibly without ever *being* charged, let alone having the evidence tested in a court of law, not to mention ignoring the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights for someone to be made aware of the charges against them and for a speedy trial.
I suggest you look at the history of the Special Patrol Group back in the 1980s and the reports of institutionalised racism following the Stephen Lawerence murder etc.
And I have not changed my mind about the right of privacy either. As I said I agree with phone tapping "*provided* that the tap was done based on reasonable suspicion rather than just as a "fishing trip"." If there was legitimately obtained evidence to suspect people of planning a crime, *then* their phones could be tapped (subject to proper scrutiny and review) and, if evidence was obtained, for that to be used in a court of law.
|
I really don't think we should be quoting the European Human Rights legislation here. Week in and week out, one hears and reads of examples of this pathetic legislature allowing the so called "human rights" of particular groups or individuals to trample on the lives of others, who presumably have less "human rights". And please don't blame sensationalist journalism here.
As with the SUS law in the 70s, quoting an area of policing from the 80s is equally defunct. Why not quote the police efforts to recruit more officers from ethnic minorities during the 90s and 2000s? After all it's more recent and hence more relevant... but then it doesn't really fit your argument, does it?
But it's the last point that interests me most: you talk about "reasonable suspicion", yet that is what this is all about. It has not been declared that EVERY Muslim will be stopped, questioned and searched whenever they leave home. It seems clear to me that what is being said is that people may be detained and questioned more often, and that there is a strong chance that there will be a larger proportion of Muslims among this element. But I think you will find that for someone to be detained and questioned, there will need to be suspicion in the first place. So, you are happy for a "suspect" to have their phone tapped (currently illegal under normal circumstances I believe), but not for them to be questioned (currently legal I believe)?