Here are the letters I wrote:
- To Ruth Hunt of the House of Lords
- To my MP
- To Keir Starmer
Hi folks
I would like to tell you about three pieces of UK legislation in the works, and political activity around them, that I feel we should all be aware of.
I got the whiff of them after a Facebook post two weeks ago, which hit my sensors and got me digging. I read a lot of articles, felt a lot of hard feelings, called and had a discussion group try to to make sense of this together, and these are my findings. I’d like to share them.
The pieces of legislation amount to, as Alyzabeth Anath succinctly put it,
“a degradation of integrity of government in the spirit of, ‘we can do whatever we want, and we are going to have power over you’.”
I find it scary, and it raises a lot of questions about why. Ok here are the details.
In sum:
- The Overseas Operations Bill - “a bill to restrict prosecutions of torture and war crimes against British soldiers serving abroad"
- The Covert Human Intelligence Bill - basically saying that undercover agents will not be prosecuted for any crimes, “including rape, torture and murder”
- Review of Administrative Law - reducing the ability of an individual to challenge the legality of government decisions in court.
It all sounds very legal-esy so I’ll try to be as clear and simple as possible. Individually they’re all slightly abstract. Put them together, and add last summer’s prorogation of parliament, and I believe we have reason to be concerned, vigilant and active.
- The Overseas Operations Bill
A new bill basically saying that British military service people serving overseas cannot be prosecuted for war crimes and torture after 5 years after the event.
“There has been considerable pressure from the Conservative backbenchers to halt prosecutions of veterans” writes The Guardian. The bill is an attempt to give military service people greater protection. It also potentially protects the government being prosecuted for war crimes conducted by service people, whose actions it is accountable for, more than (I believe) 5 years after the event.
Dan Dolan, the deputy director of Reprieve, a human rights group, said he believed “this bill would effectively decriminalise acts of torture which took place more than five years ago”, ending a ban on torture that dates back to 1640.
“Torture has been illegal in this country for more than three centuries,” he added. (Source)
The British military operates to fairly high standards, I believe. For example, last I heard, it was illegal for a British soldier to shoot someone in the back as they walk away, whereas it’s not illegal for a US soldier. If you compare the records of our militaries, the US military does a lot more nasty shit than British soldiers who are, we hope, at the very least adhering to international law.
“While the government seeks to shield itself from blame, however, soldiers may well find themselves in the international criminal court, whose jurisdiction will be triggered if the British government chooses to avoid prosecuting them.” Writes The Guardian,
For some reason, Keir Stamer whipped labour MPs to not vote on the bill.
18 Labour MPs defied the whip and voted against the bill, 3 of whom were then sacked as Parliamentary Private Secretaries (though I believe remain MPs.) Source.
Update: as of 2 Nov 2020, Labour will now vote agains the bill "to avoid a revolt"
2. Covert Human Intelligence Bill (aka the ‘spy cops bill’)
(I’m mostly sourcing from articles in the Independent such as this one. )
As far as I can tell, British spies and people working undercover have for a long time had an implicit protection from crimes they may commit while doing their jobs, in order to do their jobs. For example they have to join criminal rings, and may need to participate in crimes to win the trust of the ring.
The Government is now deciding to put that down in writing, and this is called the Covert Human Intelligence Bill.
The Bill has sparked alarm because:
- It does not set any limits on the types of crimes undercover agents can commit.
Critics say this gives them a carte blanch to commit rape, murder, torture. Comparable legislation in the US and Canada sets limits on the types of crimes agents can do, argue critics, and the UK should too.
Defenders say, don’t worry, they’re covered by the Geneva Convention on Human Rights anyway.
Critics say, say that on the tin then.
2. There’s a wide remit for who is covered by this
It’s not just undercover people working for MI5 or the police. It’s people working undercover for a range of government agencies, including the Food Standards Agency and HMRC.
It’s troubling, particularly at a time of Brexit, new trade deals with the US…
3. The range of reasons why undercover agents can commit crimes is uncomfortably broad.
Undercover agents are allowed to commit crimes in the name of national security, but also in the interest of “British Economic Interests” and “general public order.”
I find this chilling.
What’s happened?
The bill has been approved in the House of Commons and is with the Lords for consideration.
Keir Starmer tabled an amendment that would have stopped the authorisation of serious offences including causing death or bodily harm, torture, violating the sexual integrity of a person and detention. It was defeated by 317 votes to 256.
Strangely, while proposing the amendment, Keir once again whipped Labour MPs not to vote.
Several MPs rebelled against the whip and resigned their front bench positions in order to vote for the ammendments. (About 18 MPs I think.)
“MPs complained that time to debate the law had been severely limited, amid accusations that the government was rushing the bill through ahead of potentially damaging findings in the forthcoming Undercover Policing Inquiry.” Writes The Independent.
What’s with all this whipping?
According to a labour opinion piece, Keir Starmer is trying to make the labour party electable, and part of this involves improving their reputation on National Security. So Keir is managing his MPs voting record so that they’re not seen to be giving British service people and undercover agents annoying hassles.
Personally, I find the whipping alarming, especially in “The current period where the executive faces weak parliamentary scrutiny,” according to David Allen Green, the FT's legal expert (due to large Conservative majority, and possibly also covid affecting government operations.)
As you know, our system is that we vote in MPs who we hope will make good decisions and be accountable to their electorate (us); if they are prevented from voting, it feels like an alarming impingement to democratic functioning. And in these instances, it may be enabling dangerous legislation to pass.
3. Review of Administrative Law
This is the title of an independent review process the government recently initiated.
Basically they’re looking for ways to amend Judicial Review (JR).
JR is a process by which an individual can use a court to challenge the legality of a government decision. The court may then rule a government decision unlawful, which it has done recently in the case of the prorogation of parliament, and the attempt to trigger article 50 without parliamentary approval.
So having had their wrists slapped twice by Judicial Review, the government is now looking for ways that it can reduce this pesky power of the individual to legally challenge the government.
The FT’s legal expert, David Allen Green, made a helpful YouTube video to explain it.
“Judicial power should never be at the centre of public policy,” Green says, “but it should police its margins, so as to ensure that the rule of law and standards of fairness are complied with. That is why we should place under anxious scrutiny any attempts by the executive to weaken the power of the judiciary and of judicial review when this would weaken the ability of individuals, in practice, to challenge any misuse of power.”
“The best way for a Government or any public body to avoid the problems of Judicial Review, to avoid having decisions rules and policies quashed by the courts on the basis of illegality or unfairness, is to make better rules, decisions and policies in the first place.”
All that’s happened currently is the instigation of an independent review, but we need to watch this closely, and we need to protect Judicial Review.
Conclusion, questions and signposts
The Overseas Operations Bill, The Covert Human Intelligence Bill and the Review of Administrative Law, especially when added to the Prorogation of Parliament, generate in me feelings of grave concern.
Our democracy needs protection. That we govern with instruments of peace and not violence, needs appropriate legal architecture. That the legality and fairness of government decisions has checks and balances, needs protection. And that we the people can elect representatives through democratic process and that they can vote freely in the House of Commons and that this voting forms the basis of what does and doesn’t pass through government, is I believe at present the best mechanism we have (sure things could always be better) of making decisions as a nation and having some hope that these decisions will be more or less ok.
“We must all tidy our knicker drawers”, declared my mother as we entered the first lockdown.
These bills seem to represent a kind of governmental knicker drawer tidying, but why these areas?
I must confess, in our polarisation and echo chambers, I do not understand the motivations behind these efforts.
My idea of good knicker drawer tidying in a covid year in parliament might be to try to do something about the 300,000 homeless people in the UK. Or the estimated £5.2bn of lost taxes that are not collected each year due to various forms of tax avoidance. (The lost taxes divided by the number of homeless works out at about £17,000 per person per year by the way.) And to address our climate challenges. And our education, health and wellbeing challenges. And on and on.
Why work to make government more powerful, people less powerful, violence more tolerated, human rights less protected? It feels, I’m sorry this sounds alarmist, but it feels like building the architecture of a fascist state.
Personally I am more drawn to creation than to fighting, but this, I will resist.
I will write to my MP asking him to vote against legislation that reduces checks and balances on government, or is increasingly permissive of violence by state representatives. I invite you to consider doing the same.
I will write to Keir Starmer asking him to hold on the whipping. I invite you to consider doing the same, and if you have a labour MP, I invite you to encourage them to vote freely and not be whipped. (What’s with this language anyway??)
I will write to Ruth Hunt in the House of Lords asking her to work with the Lords to create strong checks and balances to protect our democracy, our peacefulness, checks and balances on power and the integrity of our government and country.
Here are my letters:
- To Ruth Hunt of the House of Lords
- To my MP
- To Keir Starmer
How to strengthen progressive power?
I have say 2h per week that I would like to dedicate to somehow being a chink in a chain of healthy democracy. I am looking around for what role to play. Join a party? Which party? Follow a leader? Which leader? I see no leader to follow.
What is going on in progressive party politics is a whole other piece. But an important one. Do we want to be resisting, challenging and clearing up the bad decisions of a seemingly dangerous government, or do we want to be organising our considerable power towards initiatives for sustainability, inclusive prosperity, wellbeing and peace? I know what I’d rather be doing with my life. How? I can’t see the way presently. I’m open to ideas. I’m seeking.
Thank you for reading this far. Protect our country and world with me?
With you in this,
Briony.
