Detention Without Trial

Having lived through the dark days of the Apartheid regime in South Africa it saddens me to see Gordon taking Britain down this path. I am appalled that one of the chief proponents appears to be one Peter Hain, who must recall the South African experience with as much sadness as I do. Back in the 60's South Africa applied much the same rule of law and burden of proof that we until recently applied here in the UK. Then they went to 7 days detention without trial. After a while that was moved to 14 days and then after another period of time this went to 28 days and then to 90 days and 180 days. The 90 day and 180 periods arrived simultaneously as I recall with the 180 days limit applied in more 'serious' cases. Of couyrse the final step was obvious, Indefinite Detention Without Trial. The problem with all of this is not that it allows the police more time to prove their case, it is more that they don't have to prove their case as you extend the period to an indefinite one and just keep people locked up on the basis that it is believed they may be a threat to state security. You then end up with what the US has in Guantanamo.

A system that served Britain well for something like a thousand years is deemed to be more difficult to apply today because we need time to get the proof required is the argument used to advocate the need for extra time. I would argue that a thousand years ago when communications relied on men on horseback, it took more time to gather proof of wrongdoing than it should in today's world where we have electronic communication. let us not allow this descent into laziness merely because some politician feels we need to fight a threat. The principle of habeas corpus should not given up or discarded lightly and I fear our politicians are doing just that. Let us persuade them not to.