Brown's apartheid

On 1 May 1963, the apartheid government of South Africa enacted the General Law Amendment Act. Better known as the Ninety-Day Detention Law, it waived the right of habeas corpus and authorised any commissioned officer to detain - without a warrant - any person suspected of a political crime and to hold them for ninety days without access to a lawyer. This was followed in 1965 by the Criminal Procedure Amendment Act, which provided for 180-day detention and re-detention thereafter. While the Terrorism Act of 1967 allowed someone suspected of involvement in terrorism, defined as anything that might "endanger the maintenance of law and order", to be detained indefinitely without trial on the authority of a senior policeman.

This piece, however, is not about African politics. It is not about Mugabe's repressive regime. It is about the politicisation in the West - and especially in the UK, yes, the UK, not the US - of terrorism. There are no solid arguments for extending detention. None at all. Indeed, after the goverment was defeated on the 90-day proposal two years ago, ministers dithered for months before coming up with another proposed time limit. As Diane Abbott said:

"They did not have a number of days because this is not an objective, evidence-driven bill. It is the purest politics. It is about the polls and about positioning. It is about putting the Conservative party in the wrong place on terrorism."

When so many key figures in counter-terrorism have spoken openly against the need for this extension, one cannot help but wonder what kind of authoritarian state Gordon Brown is building purely for political purposes.

Lets not be too dramatic - no one wants to come across as a preening David Davis - the UK is not on this soil going to impose apartheid measures, surely. It would not be possible, for example, for a person to be detained without trial and without charge for several weeks, would it? One can only hope that the Lords kill the terror bill; and that both Davis and Brown lose their re-elections.

Just a thought.
Lord Goring

*Sources: Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom; Terrorism Act No 83 of 1967 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia; The Liberation Struggle: South Africa at War 1600-1994

UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

Tom Cruise, playing the part of Chief John Anderton in The Minority Report, headed up the department of pre-crime and was responsible for arresting criminals before they committed their misadventures. I wonder whether Jack Straw, Secretary of State for Justice, doesn't think of himself as the man who will detect and prevent criminal activity and mete out punishment on the basis of the possibility that a misdoing is about to take place.

Shay Clipson, a (former) magistrate from Grimsby, has been booted out of her job for criticising the police. Mr Straw said:

"It is clear that by mentioning you were a magistrate and then criticising the police, the two issues became linked and therefore there is doubt whether you would be able to consider matters involving the police impartially."

So there it is. You're employed. There is no suggestion that you've done a poor job. Then your 13-year-old daughter has the shit kicked out of her for being Welsh by a gang who has warned her of the upcoming beating. Despite your asking first the school and then the police to intervene, they refuse. Naturally, you complain about the inaction and the next thing you know you're out of a job because the police report your behaviour to the local bench committee.

So I'm wondering if the local bobbies are going to be joining civvie street or if they can continue to sit on their arses at Her Majesty's leisure.

I'm also wondering about the Government's Children's Plan. Back in December, Children's Secretary Ed Balls launched the programme saying:

"We have been listening to parents, teachers, professionals and children and young people and the Children's Plan responds to their concerns. Over the next ten years I believe this plan will herald a radical change in the range of positive activities for our young people and a revolution in the way parents are involved in their child's education."

What Mr Balls did not say is that the Government will not tolerate parents getting involved in their child's education. Meanwhile, here's the range of positive activities that the local constabulary permitted a gang to undertake upon Ms Clipson's daughter:

• racial abuse
• spit on her
• stub out cigarettes in her hair
• throw her into the traffic on a busy road
• kick her unconscious on the school playground
• enjoy watching the show on YouTube

So perhaps it comes as no suprise that the UK, according to the Children's Rights Alliance for England (Crae), fails to meet the minimum standards set out in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by the UK in 1991. Mr Balls today admits that a good childhood is not a reality for evey child but pledges to do all he can to make this a "golden age for our children".

One suggestion: the police should intervene in situations where a child is walking the 'green mile' to a gang beating. Maybe schools should also be required to get involved. When 90% of children say they would consider carrying a knife or gun if they felt unsafe, it's time to do a little more than spend £3m on a 'viral' information campaign.

Threatening to shut down underperforming schools is probably not the solution either.

Just a thought.
Lord Goring

UN Food Summit

Lula da Silva's claim that the link between biofuels and fuel prices does not stand up is obviously rubbish. He's right that the causes of food inflation are complex but the link with biofuel is clear: while Washington suggests biofuel production is responsible for about 3% of the increase: other estimates put it as high as 30-60%.

In general, biofuels are not considered to be the prime cause of food inflation and it is right not to focus the whole debate on this single factor. However, the biofuel 'experiment' is at best a red herring, at worst a catalyst for further environmental destruction. Let's be clear: first, it has a role in causing food inflation; second, the subsidising of biodiesel is an encouragement to increase carbon emissions.

The subsidies given to the production of biofuels is greater than the cost of production of petrol or diesel. So the shift to biofuels is very expensive: for OECD members this amounts to about $15bn but only delivers 3% of liquid transport fuel. To counter future supply shortages of oil, some countries are proposing to derive 30% from biofuels, at a cost of $150bn.

Is this money well spent? Of course not!

Biofuels have very little impact on carbon emissions (13-18%). Fundamentally, the vast investment into biofuels through subsidies and tariffs - Brazilian ethanol faces tariffs of 50% in the EU - could be spent on more effective ways of reducing carbon emissions.

Of course, the whole story is not about carbon emissions either: there is a growing shortage of easily available energy. By framing the problem in this way, the response is to find alternative energy supply. There are many parties interested in maintaining the status quo: the agricultural lobby is doing very nicely from the boost to crop prices; while oil producers are enjoying the high price of oil, especially relative to the dollar.

Just a thought.
Lord Goring