Government pushing on with civil liberties policies?

19 July 2010 by

The Coalition Government promised in the first days of its rule to “reverse the substantial erosion of civil liberties under the Labour Government and roll back state intrusion“. This policy is now in play and appears to be making quick progress.

The Coalition’s Program for Government contains a long shopping list of civil liberties promises. Some are specific; scrapping ID cards, restricting DNA retention by police and reviewing libel laws. Some more vague, such as the Freedom / Great Repeal Bill, for which Deputy Prime Minister has just launched an online public consultation. As we posted last week, even the Lord Chief Justice is getting in on the act.

In May, the Economist questioned whether these early promises were in fact “relatively uncontroversial quick wins, such as scrapping plans for ID cards”, and argued that “Fundamental differences over security and criminal justice may prove more divisive over time.”

This week, Bagehot – who writes the regular opinion piece in the UK section of the newspaper – has written an interesting and more hopeful piece on the Coalition’s civil liberties policies, arguing that “the Age of [Michael] Howard is fading”, and that

The Tories and the Liberal Democrats are fleshing out the civil libertarianism they promised in opposition. Labour’s planned ID cards are done for. David Cameron, the prime minister, wants to shrink the DNA database. Ministers have suggested replacing short sentences with community punishments. This week Theresa May, the home secretary, announced a review of counter-terrorist measures.

Bagehot argues that the Coalition’s liberals have “thought seriously about their creed” and “are intellectually honest, at least in private, about the trade-off between public safety and freedom”. But the piece also councils caution, on the basis that a civil liberties crusade in times of financial crisis may increase charges of “otherwordliness“, making it “not hard to imagine the government looking out of touch next to an earthier Labour opposition.

Cian Murphy at the Human Rights in Ireland blog also qualifies any welcome for the policies, on the basis that progress has often been achieved against the wishes of the Government:

The torture documents released this week were made public after a Court thwarted the Government’s attempts to keep them secret. Stop and search was suspended after the Government’s appeal failed. Meanwhile Parliament Square remains the subject of an ongoing battle over the right to protest – one that pits the Conservative Mayor on the wrong side of the civil liberties debate

Ultimately, the real test for this Government as with any other will be how its civil liberties ideals stand up to a real and imminent threat. Many in the New Labour Government admit to being deeply affected by the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks, which probably explains why anti-terrorism laws were allowed to go as far and as deep as they did.

Whether it is because of Labour’s wide-ranging anti-terrorism legislation, effective policing, or simply good luck, Britain has not experienced a major terrorist attack for over five years. As such, it is far easier for the current government to withdraw from legislation such as stop and search which was meant to represent emergency powers in any event. Hopefully, this government will not ultimately be tested in this way, and can continue its civil liberties agenda without significant public opposition.

Read more:

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: