Robin Wilton's esoterica

Back on Nov. 8th. I posted William Heath's link to a truly shameful 'public opinion survey' on the Labour website. Revisiting the links today I find two things: I can't get to William's Ideal Government site... I get a 'suspended' page, which is worrying. William... are you still there, or have the Thought Police rounded you up for your habit of asking awkward questions? The survey page has disappeared, replced with this more anodyne offering, though if you search hard enough you can also unearth this remnant, vestige or dog-end. Strangely enough, there seems to be no trace of what the survey collected in terms of opinion. Good. I would hate to think that anyone saw that survey as a valid metric of public opinion on anything at all. Why was I revisiting it, though? Because today the House of Lords has signalled its intent to give the Anti-Terror bill 'a thorough going-over' (The Guardian); in other words, they are going to examine it again clause by clause on its second passage through the Lords, and propose amendments to anything they still don't like the look of. The House of Commons revolt on the 90-day detention limit (forcing a reduction to 28 days) clearly has not addressed all of their Lordships' concerns. The Prime Minister has countered by warning them 'not to defy public opinion' on the Bill, with a senior Downing Street official quoted as saying: "If the House of Lords in any way harries the bill before the peers tonight it will be particularly out of touch with public opinion" (same Guardian article). That's a very strange thing to say. First, it's the job of the House of Lords to review legislation proposed by the Commons, and challenge it if they see fit. That's one of the 'checks and balances' still remaining in our parliamentary system, though ultimately the Lords cannot veto a bill or insist that it be changed. They can only delay its passage into law, and suggest amendments. Second, I would argue that one of the benefits of having the (appointed, rather than elected) Lords is that they can take a view less swayed by the vagaries of wanting to cling to power. In the long run, some of the worst law is passed when the Commons over-reacts to the pressing public perception of the day. I also think the appeal to 'public opinion' takes the Prime Minister onto shaky ground, on a day when it appears that the much-publicised backing from senior police`officers for the 90-day detention did not extend to the Bill as a whole. Apparently a report by ACPO found that all 14 of the Bill's main proposals "would risk alienating Muslims", and that they could not support four of the proposals. All four are still in the Bill, which creates the impression that Mr Blair will cite the police's view when they say what he wants, but not if they don't. On that basis, 'public opinion' can hardly be claimed to be an informed source or input. Amnesty International describes the current Anti-terror proposals as "Draconian and dangerous": citing many of the concerns I raised on October 8th, September 16th, September 15th, August 8th, and elsewhere... They cite the vagueness of key terms in the Bill ('glorification of terrorism', 'encouraging terrorism', 'terrorism' itself), impracticality of some of the offences ('encouragement to terrorism' relies on the audience's reaction, not the intent of the speaker), sweeping nature of offences ('present in a place where instruction or terrorist training is being carried out'), and so on. Kate Allen, Director of Amnesty International UK, writes of her "growing concern that the UK's counter-terrorism measures amount to a sustained attack on human rights, the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary". It is, she says, "undermining important human rights protections at home and setting a bad example overseas".