Is Government asylum policy "fair and right"?

 So Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has broken the ministerial silence since the BBC asked Gary Lineker to step back from presenting Match of the Day. In doing so he says that Linker "was a great footballer and is a talented presenter" before going on to say that that he believes that the government's policy is "fair and right?

The question though should be is it?

Firstly we need to rebuff the phrase branded about claiming there are illegal asylum seekers. The Refugee Council point out:

There is no such thing as an ‘illegal’ or ‘bogus’ asylum seeker. Under international law, anyone has the right to apply for asylum in any country that has signed the 1951 Convention and to remain there until the authorities have assessed their claim

The UK is a signatory of that Convention. This is the Convention was actually in part drafted by Winston Churchill. It is also something that is enshrined into the European Convention on Human Rights. It was the ECHR that when presenting her policy to the House of Commons the Home Secretary Suella Braverman wrote:

I am unable to make a statement that, in my view, the provisions of the Illegal Migrants Bill are compatible with the Convention rights, but the Government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed to the Bill.

Herein lies problem number one. We are already calling those that arrive my small boats Illegal Migrants, see the Refugee Council above. But also this Government knowingly wants to proceed when it could break a Convention drafted with British input. 

Maybe we can rule out that the Bill is going to be right on that basis.

As for is it fair, we need to look at how anyone claim asylum in the UK under the Bill. Let us return to the Refugee Council.

It is recognised in the 1951 Convention that people fleeing persecution may have to use irregular means in order to escape and claim asylum in another country – there is no legal way to travel to the UK for the specific purpose of seeking asylum.

Yet the Government are saying that the provisions of the Bill will not affect people who seek a legal route into the UK to claim asylum, such routes do not exist.

The Bill also aims to detain those that reach these shores by small boat without trial, without access to a lawyer for the first 28 days, or the courts, and then deport them, with no legal right to appeal and to be barred for ever from entering the UK.

 
However, arbitrarily depriving an individual of their liberty is prohibited under international human rights law. Article 9 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights decrees that "no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile"; that is, no individual, regardless of circumstances, is to be deprived of their liberty or exiled from their country without having first committed an actual criminal offense against a legal statute, and the government cannot deprive an individual of their liberty without proper due process of law.  

So not looking very fair or very right. Also, before I get apologists saying but these are all international treatings and conventions remember one thing. In the shadow of World War II it was Britain that was at the forefront of drafting and writing the conventions and treaties that are mentioned here. This was done to prevent a nation treating other humans in a lesser way. At the moment the UK Government is steering us into a clear breach of so much international convention we are heading to being a pariah state on a par with Russia, North Korea et al.

The Northern Ireland abortion consultation

There is a letter in today's Belfast Telegraph arguing for human rights for the unborn, in light of the Northern Ireland Department of Justice looking at extending the right to abortion to fatal foetal abnormalities and victims of rape.

Here's the thing there already is the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine which includes two very clear articles that address issues:

Article 14 – Non-selection of sex 

The use of techniques of medically assisted procreation shall not be allowed for the purpose of choosing a future child's sex, except where serious hereditary sex-related disease is to be avoided.

Article 18 – Research on embryos in vitro 

1. Where the law allows research on embryos in vitro, it shall ensure adequate protection of the embryo. 
2. The creation of human embryos for research purposes is prohibited.

Another document to consult is the UN Declaration on Human Rights. In Article 1 there is lays out what a human being actually is:

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Keys words are born, reason and conscience. Surely that implies that our human existance only begins at the point of our birth.

But having said that the embryo articles in the biomedicine convention do give some protections even before then. Indeed Article 14 would seem to allow by extension to allow for the three parent medical assistance for overcoming mitochondrial diseases. It is not choosing gender specific related disease but still allowing avoidance of serious disease.

Someone in the comments used a very good analogy in relation to fatal foetal abnormalities, comparing it to life support machines. We allow families to turn off the life support of those whose brain is no longer conscious and able to support their life with the system. The same applies to fatal foetal abnormalities, their life support machine is the mother's womb and the tubes they are linked up to are the umbilical chord. We don't make families wait up to 9 months to turn off the life support machine, so why should this be different for fatal foetal abnormalities?

As for victims of rape turn again to the UN Declaration on Human Right

Article 5.

 No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

If you have been raped and are made to carry your pregnancy full term is that not cruel? Is that not degrading treatment? Think of all the times once the bump starts to show that a mother is asked "will the father be looking after you both" or "who's the father?". Aren't these also parts of a cruel punishment for a woman whose body has been invaded not just in the brief minutes of the assault but for the 9 months that cruel, often male, objectors insist she must live with the evidence of a low point in here existence.

Slaves delivering Qatar's World Cup

The fact that FIFA awarded the 2022 World Cup would have been bad enough with the heat of the time of year it will be held and its human rights and LGBT offenses. But now it appears that the immigrant population that is building the infrastructure to host the event is being held in slave-like conditions.

Forty four young Napalise men died in a little over two months in June-August. They are not being paid and have their salaries retained to stop them running away. They are also not being allowed free water as their toil under the hot desert heat and are often left hungry as they work 12 hour long days. They also have their passports confiscated and not receive ID cards mean that their status officially is that of illegal immigrants, yet they are the workforce that is enabling Qatar to develop.

Will FIFA step in to this situation?

Sadly I doubt it, our world governing bodies are proving that while they are willing to talk to the talk about human endeavour and equality they are very reluctant to walk the walk when their decisions are found to have given their prestige events to someone who is not just less than perfect but so far from perfect that they should have known about the possibility in the first place of the controversy that would ensue. FIFA is probably not about to back heel the Qatar bid into someone else's net.

Conform or else no job for you - Osborne

"The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. We champion the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals, we acknowledge and respect their right to freedom of conscience and their right to develop their talents to the full.

"We recognise that the independence of individuals is safeguarded by their personal ownership of property, but that the market alone does not distribute wealth or income fairly" Two extracts from the Preamble to the Liberal Democrats Constitution

How then do we find ourself in coalition with a Chancellor who is offering to lift employment rights for new employees in return for share options?

As someone who is currently seeking work I don't want to have as a question in interview:

"If you were to be offered this job would you be willing to do without employee rights in return for some shares?"

Maybe it is because I am an economics graduate who knows that share values are only of value while there is a solvent company behind them. Or maybe it is because many of my former colleagues in The Signet Group were tied into share bonuses while the company's share price plummeted.But mostly it is because as a Liberal Democrat I do not want any individual to be trampled over in the name of business. Those rights are there to protect not only the employee but the employer.

We are looking at a large number of people who are unemployed. Every job I currently apply for is heavily over subscribed so even being called to interview is a rarity. So how would I, or someone less tuned in to their rights and how shares work going to respond if they were asked that question? They are likely to be given the job, those of us who do not want to waive our employment rights will be shunted to the end of any list when it comes to awarding the job. We would be made unemployable as there might be someone out there who is prepared to take the shares and give the employer permission to do whatever they want them to do.

If we as a party do not believe that people should be enslaved by conformity, this new option may end up leading to those that do not want to conform to Osborne's ideal being enslaved to poverty being unable to find work as they will not take the shares.

There are arguments going around in senior Lib Dem circles that this is only voluntary and nothing to worry about. How can they be so blind? Employers will make it appear voluntary but take the option that best suits them, ie those that agree to waive their rights. The pressure will be applied to return us all to Victorian working practices ie that the employer has all the rights and the employees none.

We need to stop Osborne from making this ridiculously backward step. We need to not be distracted by the voluntary language that is being used. We need to stand up for the individual, every individual and protect tehir employment rights as it is clear that the Conservative Party are not going to even hide that they don't want to.

To Egypt from a non real person

Many of us believe that the right to peaceful association is one of innate human rights. However, if you are gay that appears not to be the case in the Middle East according to Egypt's chief diplomatic representative to the United Nations' Human Rights Council.

At a meeting discussing the universal right of association he said that gay people were not considered 'real people' before concluding with:

"Finally, concerning the highly controversial notion of sexual orientation, we can only reiterate that it is not part of the universally recognized human rights."

So apparently I am not real should I visit Egypt, but more worryingly those who life there are seen as not human. Which means that the authorities will treat them as they see fit or let others do so without protection. Once again I am drawn to the words I learnt for my O'Level English literature from Act III Scene I of the Merchant of Veniece with slight alteration

Hath not a gay eyes? Hath not a gay hands, organs,
dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with
the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject
to the same diseases, heal'd by the same means,
warm'd and cool'd by the same winter and summer
as a Egyptian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed?
If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us,
do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?
If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that.
If a gay wrong a Muslim, what is his humility?
Revenge. If a Egyptian wrong a gay, what should his
sufferance be by Egyptian example? Why, revenge.
The villainy you teach me, I will execute,
and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.

Of course people are human whatever their sexuality. They should be offered the same protection under the law, otherwise vigil antes can run amok even at the rumour that someone is different.

It is a shame that a diplomat cannot be diplomatic in his approach to all the people of his nation.

The fact that I can write a blog and talk about such things shows that I am a real person. My politicians here in Northern Ireland at least all acknowledge my existence and admit that I should be protected under the law with my basic human rights.

Looks like David Cameron wants a Big Secret Society

Generated via RedKid
Based on characters by Charles M. Schulz

First we have the Snoopy snooping row today we hear that the Conservatives want more closed, secret court hearings.

The issue is over whose say so court proceedings should be secret. Cameron says it should be the Ministers, but Clegg is saying this power should not go to Parliament but remain with the judiciary. Maybe David Cameron fancies himself as the next James Bond (which after all is just 4 years older than the PM as a film franchise) with Theresa May as Q, but there is too much talk from the Tories about subterfuge at the moment.

Thankful this time it appears that Clegg has taken the bull by the horns before it even contemplates the merest possibility of bolting from through the doors of Westminster, saying:

"[Security Services] cannot be allowed to ride roughshod over the principle of open justice".

Clegg has even said that the Tories have gone about announcing legislation in a "blunderbuss" fashion, the past few days when there have been leaks about secrecy legislation plans being a case in point. Spuriously coughing out a worst case scenario that may have been discussed that in no way would get approval by the Lib Dems, hence making us look bad only to then come in later with another proposal that is less scary after all the initial accusations have passed and nobody gives them as much attention.

However, Nick Clegg has told the National Security Council that the Lib Dems will not back legislation that allows more court hearings and inquests behind closed doors. The excuse from Ken Clarke that the USA are  afraid of the openness of UK judicial proceedings is not a valid one. The USA had long held secret, closed sessions of their supreme court sometimes subpoenaing witnesses at the last minute. They are one of the most secretive states in the world at times for all the appearance of openness on the outside.

Their failure to ratify Protocol I and II of the Geneva Conventions and other Internation Human Rights Conventions, or at least without much alacrity means that the USA is one of the least accountable countries in the World to everyone else. Their use if extraordinary rendition and sanctioning of evidence obtained through torture are things that aren't to be held in esteem. Indeed their retention of capital punishment would make them ineligible for membership of the EU. So the USA is hardly an example of being above board in terms of judicial practice, so the fact that they fear handing over secrets that may expose some of the practices mentioned in an open review is hardly a cause to hide those ourselves.

The Conservatives want secrecy, the Lib Dems want openness. We know how the secrets of the MPs expenses went down with the general public, so how on earth do the Tories think that keeping something so fundamental a secret is going to go down? I'm glad the Lib Dems are in government at the moment and are campaigning for openness and the retention of open justice.

David Cameron is not so much wanting a Big Society as to still be the member and leader of a Secret Society it seems.

How does the UN universally declare marriage rights? #factcheck

Cardinal Keith O'Brien in his Sunday Telegraph article said:

"In Article 16 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, marriage is defined as a relationship between men and women."

and

"The Universal Declaration on Human Rights is crystal clear: marriage is a right which applies to men and women, 'the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State'."

So let's take at look at how crystal clear that is. Article 16 which applies to marriage states:

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

So that doesn't as the Cardinal stated say that it is between one man and one one woman, merely that men and women of full age are entitled to the right to marry without limitation, providing there is free and full consent. It is not as crystal clear as he had made out, it doesn't define who the spouses in each marriage should be, indeed the language is rather neutral in what it actually says on the make up of the spouses, for the record it doesn't even specify monogamy.

The thrust of the Cardinal's message was the impact that equal marriage would have on children but other articles also mention family:

Article 12:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Therefore surely calling families that don't have mixed sex parents a grotesque subversion is surely attacking the honour and reputation of those family members.

Article 25:
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Hang on the Cardinal said:

"All children deserve to begin life with a mother and father;"

and

"Same-sex marriage would eliminate entirely in law the basic idea of a mother and a father for every child. It would create a society which deliberately chooses to deprive a child of either a mother or a father."

So the Cardinal appears to be picking which parts of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights he wants to adhere to. All children are entitled to the same social protection.

If the Cardinal should not pick and choose Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to make a point, just a Christians shouldn't pick and choose verses to prove their point. Now should he try and interpret them by adding words that aren't there into them.

Just who is infantile Richard Littlejohn?

***WARNING THIS BLOG POST LINKS TO THE DAILY FAIL***


You'd expect the Daily Mail to condemn us Liberal Democrats it is something that they do on a regular basis. However, Richard Littlejohn takes the biscuit today.

He says that Lib Dem delegates at conference, so that by that he includes me, are infantile for cheering Nick Clegg for defending Human Rights and the Human Rights Acts. Only of course Littlejohn doesn't call it that he calls is yuman rites, when it comes to terrorist suspects.

Here is news for Mr Littlejohn all suspects are just that suspects until proven otherwise. What is worse even if they are convicted they are still human.

But Littlejohn suggests being able to detain terrorist suspects indefinitely without trial or with a trail but before a kangaroo court. We've done that before in the UK it was called internment and it took place in Northern Ireland in the 70s. You know what it did, it acted as a major recruitment aid to the terrorists groups as others saw those interned as martyrs. So go on Mr Littlejohn learn nothing from recent history, don't try and learn anything from the present and just stoke the fires of hatred see how much safer that makes the people of the UK.

UPDATED Human Trafficking: Labour, Lib Dems and the EU Directive

Originally posted at 04:18. Now updated with new information which in my humble opinion makes this vitally important and potentially a coalition deal breaker.

Yesterday on my way to Liberal Drinks in Belfast I read a story that really got me seething, sadly I couldn't get signal on the train or it would already have been written up.

Apparently the coalition government has used its European opt-out not to sign up to a directive that includes a common definition of trafficking which makes it easier to convict people across the 27 member states. Dennis McShane is up in arms about the Government failing to sign up to this directive.

In the European campaign before it got scuppered by the expenses scandal the Lib Dems were quite correction pointing out some of the errors in the EU and some of its strengths including cross-border policing. We especially aimed our attack at the Conservatives who were wanting to scrap many of the protections that the EU gave our citizens under co-operative policing. Therefore if a directive was being ignored, or opted out on by the new Government Lib Dems would rightly be pointing that Dennis McShane has a right to be angry.

However, when I googled to find said directive the only result that came back that matched the remit of the story is this one. It has been open to signature since the 16th of May, so you suggest a new government would be keen to act on it. Unfortunately that particular 16th May is in 2005. Therefore does that mean that the directive has been around for five years? Does that mean the Labour Government, under which Dennis McShane was Europe Minister, failed to sign the directive in a full term of parliament?

Now of course there may well be another directive in 2010 that I have been unable to find. If there is and someone would like to post a link to it in my comments please do and I'll amend the post accordingly. However, it does on the surface, after my initial anger, to be yet another case of the Labour opposition trying to punch holes in the Government ship and ending up merely exposing their own shortcomings.

Update As I asked above any update on a new directive would be welcomed. Well Olga Ivannikova has provided just that. There was a new directive on 29 March 2010.

Therefore I would echo Olga's that we as Liberal Democrats should stand up so that nobody is enslaved in this or any other way. Not kowtow to Eurosceptic Tories who want nothing to do with Europe even when it is for the betterment of humanity.

This for me is a line in the sand which the Lib Dems should not step over. We should sign up to this EU directive. If not we as Liberal Democrats should walk away from the coalition.

Kung Hei Fat Choy 恭喜发财 2010

It may well be Valentines Day but it is also Chinese New Year, so as we enter the year of the Tiger let's look at what I said last Chinese New Year.

Then I looked at some of those that were sentenced under the crime of subversion. Just before this new year another sad tale is added to the list Liu Xiaobo who lost his appeal earlier this week against a eleven year sentence for inciting subversion.

He is one of the co-authors of Charter 08 and I wrote about his arrest in December 2008. Last month 4 retired members of the Communist Party officials had written to authorities pleading for Liu's release. They suggested his conviction violated some of the principles for which they had fought.

Charter 08, taking its name from Vaclev Havel's Charter 77 movement in Czechoslovakia against Soviet occupation, originally was signed by 303 people from across China's communities (intellectuals, editors, lawyers, artists and people who described themselves as peasants and workers). It quickly gathered pace and was signed by 10,000 signatories, but the authorities were anxious that so many people had managed to show their support for the discussion laid out in Charter 08 without their authorisation.

His defence lawyers said that in court there was a lack on commonsense to distinguish between the government and ruling party, which Liu had criticised, and the state which he did not attack.

Charter 08 is calling for human rights, democracy and an end of the Communist Party's monopoly on power. The last is the line that has been crossed which has brought the party hierarchy down on those who are leaders of the movement.

Kung hei fat choy means "congratulations and be prosperous" so yet again this year there isn't too much, outside of economic prosperity, to be congratulatory to China about. There is more to prosperity that what is in the bank.

How Rainbow are the Tories? Part II

Earlier this month I asked how truly gay friendly were the Tories. Tim Trent a blogger from Devon wrote to his local representatives about the Ugandan 'Anti-Homosexuality Bill' and got this response from Giles Chichester Conservative MEP for England South West and Gibraltar, I've highlighted a key phrase.

Dear Mr Trent,

Thank you for your round robin email to South West MEPs of 8th January with regard to Ugandan proposed legislation. I am replying on behalf of my Conservative colleagues because under the arrangement we have for constituency cover on a geographical county by county basis I am the initial point of contact for correspondence from Devon.

Yes I am aware of the press reports. I have the impression that being against homosexuality is not the sole or even major part of this draft legislation nevertheless I can well understand the concern it has caused in the wider world

My Personal opinion is that homosexuals have human rights like every other person. I have not made any representations in this matter up to now because I regard it as a matter for Ugandans to decide.

Of course as Tim correctly points out the name of the bill is 'The Anti-Homosexuality Bill 2009". If the sole purpose of locking up anyone who has taken part in same sex sexual activities isn't a sole purpose of being against homosexuality I want to know what Mr Chichester thinks would be. Maybe his allies in Europe are clouding his judgement, or maybe that is just his Conservative party philosophy.

Tim goes on to criticise the sentiment in the last paragraph it is just a form of words. He wrote back asking the MP to imagine he was in the 1930s, instead of 'homosexuals' use 'Jews' and instead of 'Ugandans' use 'Germans' and read the paragraph again.

I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

Officious Police Halt Mr Gay China

The other day I post about the potential opening up of China with the arrival of the Mr Gay China Pageant.

Guess what?

The event that was due to start today has been shut down by the Chinese police. As the Guardian article concluded on Tuesday:

"Officials could show up and say 'your fire hydrant is in the wrong place. It is still a sensitive issue."

So today they did indeed turn up and said the event had not followed the "correct procedures", such a 'clear' reason of what is wrong is obviously difficult for organisers to appease the officials. I hope that Google.cn make this a special icon on their front page.

So the country that only decriminalised homosexuality 13 years ago and declassified it as a mental condition 9 years ago has either found a fire hydrant in the wrong place, a wrong date on a piece of paper work, or chairs no aligned in the right way as a reason to halt this step forward.

Tory's True Colours Shining Through

It appears that the Tory's are taking drastic action with someone who doesn't agree with them. No not Nick Griffen. In this case it is Keir Starmer the director of public prosecutions. The issue is the Human Right's Act.

Before the MPs expenses scandal distracted all voters from the parties' European messages this was one of the key planks to the Conservative manifesto. Yeah they didn't want to have the rights of UK citizens protected equally across the length and breadth of Europe, they wanted to tear it up and make it "more British". Mr Griffen would have been proud.

What Mr Starmer had the audacity to say at the Crown Prosecution Service annual dinner last night was:

"It would be to this country's shame if we lost the clear and basic statements of our citizens' human rights provided by the Human Rights Act on the basis of a fundamentally flawed analysis of their origin and relevance to our society.

"I am proud to be part of a society that regards these rights as part of my entitlement as a member of that society.

"They are basic; they are fundamental; and I venture to suggest that, for the majority of us, they are so much a part of our way of life that we take them for granted.

"I cannot think of any way in which such basic human rights are either so foreign to England and Wales that they do not reflect those principles that we hold dear, or which for some other unspecified reason are thought not to be relevant ... to each and every member of our communities the English Channel is odd and, frankly, impossible to defend."

Hardly inflammatory stuff you would think. Well unless you are David Davies MP (that's with the 'e', not the one who resigned as a liberty champion last year). Speaking to the Torygraph he said:

"We should tear up the Human Rights Act and replace it with something that protects law-abiding citizens from violent criminals. And we should tear up [Starmer's] contract as well."

Another Davies, Philip the MP for Shipley added:

"Keir Starmer is wrong. He is out of touch with public opinion. While he is qualified to be head of the CPS, this has nothing to do with him. His job is not to tell us what the law should be but to prosecute on what the law is. He should concentrate on doing his job rather than lecturing parliament."

Interesting that a DPP has to execute sound judgement based on the law. If he believes it is grounded in basic honourable principles surely that makes it easier to fulfil that role. We hear a lot of Tories recently talking about the rules of natural justice which is something that Starmer seems to suggest the Human Rights Act is far more than any decision over MPs expenses.

In fact considering the number of lawyers in the Conservative's list of candidates I wonder how many of them would be qualified to be head of the CPS. But of course these lawyers are wanting to get elected so they can tell us what the law should be.

David Cameron says he wants rid of the Human Rights Act saying it puts the rights of criminals before those of law-abiding citizens, yet at the same time his party wants to withdraw also from the European cross-border policing agencies. Guess that makes it easy to avoid the Tories' British only Bill of Rights then. Have a Eurostar ticket ready before you commit a crime against the law-abiding Brits on their wee island state and toodle-loo.

SNP Want to Fine You and Keep Your DNA

They only last month the SNP were claiming that we had a compassionate, human justice system. Yet now they are looking to close a 'loophole' in the capture of DNA of offenders.

Up until now only the DNA of those convicted of a crime could be taken and kept on the Government data base. However, if the person chose to take a direct measure, such as a fine, as an alternative to being prosecuted in court then their DNA could not be kept. The SNP are saying this is a loophole that must be closed. One does have to ask does this include points for speeding, parking fines or fines for dropping litter?

SNP West of Scotland MSP Stewart Maxwell has brought an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill to try and bring this about. He claims that DNA retained by such measures does not infringe anyone's human rights. Of course direct measures can also be used in cases of in vandalism, breach of the peace, theft, assault and other alleged offences as well as those listed above.

The Association of Chief Police Officers and Scottish Police Services Authority have called for forensic data taken from those who accept a police fixed-penalty notice to be retained. Something that does not seem to be taken into account in Mr Maxwell's amendment which calls for such gathered information to be retained indefinitely.

Is This a Progressive Party?

The Conservatives seem to think that a few key placed, if misused, words can help the branding of their party. They have been using the words 'clean' and 'honest' in the Norwich North by election then they were far from transparent but successful. So they are repeating the mantra in Glasgow North East.

They are also attempting to use the word 'progressive' to describe their past, present and future. Though interestingly seeing as the Lib Dems don't do well in polling to come equal top of the parties with the Tories in one poll on progressiveness slightly above out voting intention level, with them well down is a telling sign.

Heck there is even a piece in today's Torygraph by Antony Sheldon who has an upcoming book called Trust which tries to highlight Cameron's progressive theme. He opens by saying that Robert Peel, Benjamin Disraeli, the Marquis of Salisbury, Stanley Baldwin, Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher are rare in Conservative history in being prime ministers who changed their party and the direction of the country. But what was the direction of their country at the times that they were trying to change.

Disreali was up against Gladstone and his reform agenda. Baldwin may well have introduced votes for women but called his first election to gain a mandate for a protectionist pact, failing to gain a majority. Of course Churchill was a great war leader but post war was voted out for not having the vision to help the people recover, and then in opposition opposed the establishment of the NHS, something that still causes division in Tory ranks just last week. As for Thatcher she was hardly the great social reformer, her reign from milk snatcher, to unfair taxation, supporting the apartheid regime, section 28, suppression of rights to protest.

One telling quote is this:

"Thatcher had been radical on economic reform and [David Cameron] was going to be equally modernising on social reform."

See the above, think and also watch the below. Is being as radical as Thatcher was on economic reform necessarily going to be a good thing for social reform? I for one dread to think what social inequality that can bring after the economic inequality of Thatcher's 'steal from the poor give to the rich' Dooh Nobir* strategy.



*For anyone not catching that it is Robin Hood in reverse.

Uyghur Death Toll Rising

It's just over 20 days from the deadliest day of China's attempts to put down public protest in Tiannemen Square but on Sunday in Urumqi the capital of China's only Muslim majority region there is a death toll of 156 and rising. I've commented before on the unrest that is ongoing in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (AKA East Turkestan, Uyghuristan, and Uyghurstan ) it is one of the remotest regions of China where the standard Beijing time of the whole country is a nonsense as it should really be two hours behind.

The protest sparked this time after unrest last month between factory workers from the predominant Chinese Han and Uighur workers over the alleged rape of a Han girl by two Uighurs. A crowd gathered to protest at the government's handling of that incident.

The Han are now the majority people in Urumqi but the government has once again their is racial unrest brought about by the long standing Chinese resettlement programme of placing Han into the major cities of the provinces and given roles of responsibility in overseeing the local populations. No more so is this the case that in the Western provinces such as Uyghur that looks to its shared ancestry more with the former Soviet Central Asian republics than the Pacific plains Chinese.

Tension is mounting an today violence has broken out in a second city in the region.

Intrernational Outcry Against Aung San Suu Kyi Charges

Aung San Suu Kyi has now been officially charged by authorities in Burma (Myanmar) for breaking terms of her house arrest.

US Citizen John Yettaw who swam across the lake to her compound and then hid out there for two days, despite Suu Kyi asking him to swim back across the lake and not wanting him there, is the reason for these charges. The military junta seem to be ceasing on this outside and unwanted influence to detain the Nobel Peace Laureate for longer than they currently can and past the date of elections scheduled for 2010.

She will face trial having been removed from her compound to Insein jail this morning on Monday and the charges carry a maximum five year jail term.

US State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said:

"We have seen this report, which is certainly troubling if true. US Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton has seen it as well, and has asked the Department to work
to get more information."

Gordon Brown has added the concerns of the UK saying:

"The Burmese regime is clearly intent on finding any pretext, no matter how
tenuous, to extend her unlawful detention. I am deeply disturbed that Aung San
Suu Kyi may be charged with breaching the terms of her detention.

"The real injustice, the real illegality, is that she is still detained
in the first place. If the 2010 elections are to have any semblance of
credibility, she and all political prisoners must be freed to participate.

"Only then will Burma be set on the road to real democracy, stability
and prosperity."

Elsewhere Norway and Germany are amongst a growing list of nations that condemn the arrest and impending trial of Ms Suu Kyi.

Keep up to date with more and what you can do to help at the Burma Campaign UK site.

Burma Pro-Democracy Leader Faces Trial

Aung San Suu Kyi the leader of Myanmar's (Burma's) National League for Democracy Party has been taken from her house where she has been under house arrest without trial for the last 6 years and for 13 of the last 19 years to Rangoon'n Insein prision to face trail.

Her current term of detention was due to end on 25 May. It appears that the military junta are going to use the incident of the America who swam over to Suu Kyi's comound last week as grounds for the charge. Myanmar law make it mandatory for any citizen to notify local officials about any overnight visitor who is not a family member. Foreigners are not allowed to spend the night at a local's home. That American John Yiddaw has yet to be charged. However, Washington group U.S. Campaign for Burma say that he along with Ms Suu Kyi, her two maids and her personal doctor Tin Myo Win (who was arrested without explanation the day after the incident) will be being tried in the court at Insein jail from 7:30am (local time) 1:ooam (BST) this morning.

Show you support for Aung San Suu Kyia and Democracy for Myanmar/Burma by visiting the Burma Campaign UK website.

Not the Only Outraged Gay in the Village

The right thinking people of the UK got and get up at arms when there hear about 'education programmes' in China and that used to go on in the Soviet Bloc. Yet what happens when re-education occurs here.

Apparently nothing yet it is going on.

As I was getting off the bus this morning the front page of the Metro caught my eye. Apparently 17% of our country's therapists have attempted to 'cure' gay patients of their orientation. This is despite the Department of Health stating 'Homosexuality is not a mental disorder and does not need treatment'. How can these people be allowed to practise? How can they attempt 'the cure' on people often young and vulnerable who go to them seeking guidance to deal with the pressures that society and their peers put upon them. Or even that they put upon themselves (which I know from over a decade of personal experience).

Now obviously these people see that as their right as not being the 'norm' but hey none of us fit every modal criteria in this world. Indeed one response used the word 'perverse'.

Looking at the numbers for what these people think is a group that needs re-education I think it is roughly equivalent to the number of people who attend football matches every weekend obsessively. Now I know there are also closeted football fans who hide their love on their sofa at home. Or who may venture out showing their colours around town, but who never actively partake in their love. But of those 100% obsessives shouldn't we attempt to re-educate them, they (and I include myself of course) are not normal.

However, football fans assist the economy. They go to specialist venues that aren't everyone's cup of tea. They buy food and drink there. They even have to buy the right clothes, don't want to be seen in last years threads now do you. Also there are the trips abroad with other obsessives, a quick jaunt to a place that is allowing them to partake in their obsession with others if they so desire. But they aren't normal, because you cannot define normal just differences a which we all are.

Let's admit it homophobia is gay and definitely should not be allowed. Especially amongst those that vulnerable groups need to turn to for help.

Chinese Deathly Whispers

In 2007 there were a total of 1,252 executions around the world. In 2008 one country had 40% more that the entire number for the world in the previous 12 months with 1,718. Not only was China responsible for that increase by by itself the People's Republic of China accounts for 72% of the world's executions in 2008. Four other countries Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United States join them to make up 93% all all in the last 12 months.

It could me worse as Amnesty International say that the figures for China are only the minimum estimate, the exact figure is a secret and may be as high as 6,000 to 15,000 according to some activists estimates. This was despite a promise to the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to clean up their human rights record ahead of hosting the game in Beijing last summer. Yet while the world was enjoying the hospitality of the games more than 4 times the number of China's own citizens were put to death than the year before.

The change in style of execution has also changed from firing squad to lethal injection a move that Chinese authorities says shows a greater attention to human rights. And mobile death vans travel from town to town to administer the injections cutting costs.

The sharp increase goes against the trend in recent years which showed a decline in executions in China.