Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Questa Londra che preoccupa

Il rifiuto da parte del Governo di ritirare la legge sull'antiterrorismo,
lascia l'UK sulla soglia di una crisi costituzionale gravissima che minaccia
secoli di liberta`civili, arduamente conquistate.
Oh Britannia, quello che costa seguire il passo del tiranno oltreoceano!
Giano
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/story.jsp?story=594342
Belmarsh: a new affront to justice
By Robert Verkaik and Colin Brown
18 December 2004
The Government's refusal to withdraw its anti-terror laws has left Britain
on the brink of a constitutional crisis that threatens centuries of hard-won
civil liberties, it was claimed last night.
Ministers were warned that their unprecedented defiance in the face of a
clear ruling by the country's highest court has set the executive on a
collision course with the judiciary. The Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw,
defined the Government's position yesterday when he described Thursday's
historic ruling on the indefinite detention of foreign terror suspects, held
at Belmarsh high-security prison in London, as "simply wrong".
The law lords' landmark judgment has, in effect, dismantled the centrepiece
of the Government's anti-terror policy in the wake of the 11 September 2001
attacks on the US.
But Mr Straw enraged lawyers and civil liberties campaigners by reinforcing
the Government's determination to strengthen controversial powers to combat
any terror threat. He said: "The Government's responsibility ... is to
protect people from the threat of terrorism. On this dilemma of how to
balance liberty and order, the most important liberty is the right to life.
If that liberty is taken away by the terrorists, then we have not met our
prime obligation as a government."
Civil liberties groups and human rights lawyers said the comments were proof
that the country was facing its "most serious constitutional crisis since
the end of the war". Michael Mansfield QC, one of Britain's foremost civil
rights lawyers, said: "It is probably the most significant pronouncement
from the judiciary since the end of the war on the state of civil liberties,
particularly since it has concentrated on one of the most fundamental
freedoms, namely the right to liberty."
Shami Chakrabarti, the director of the human rights group Liberty, said:
"It's unthinkable that a law-and-order government would ignore the highest
court. Our democracy rests upon the mutual respect between judges and
politicians and the Government should tread carefully."
Louise Christian, the solicitor representing two of the Britons still being
held in Guantanamo Bay, said: "They have gone against the express wishes of
the eight law lords. I believe Charles Clarke should be advising the Prime
Minister that this is not a sensible position for a government that has
passed the Human Rights Act to get itself into."
Phil Shiner, a human rights lawyer, said: "I cannot recall any judgment of
any court in this country where eight law lords have so systematically
criticised a government on an issue of such fundamental importance to our
constitution. If this government defies the Lords on this they will bring on
a constitutional crisis of enormous importance."
Senior colleagues of Charles Clarke, the new Home Secretary, said that the
crisis would provide a test of whether he would follow his hardline
predecessor, David Blunkett, or whether he would choose a more conciliatory
course.
Mr Clarke, who on Monday will defend the Government over the Bill to
introduce identity cards, made it clear within hours of the law lords'
judgment that he intends to give Parliament the chance to assert its
authority. The Home Secretary said he is considering whether changes are
needed to the emergency anti-terrorist laws under which the detainees in
Belmarsh are held - but he will not release them.
A senior government source confirmed that the Home Secretary was considering
changing the law to allow evidence gained from telephone tapping to be made
admissible for the first time in the British criminal courts. That could
answer the central charge against the Government by a majority of the law
lords that men are being detained without any evidence being presented to
the courts.
But there are strong voices inside the Government against allowing taps to
be used in court, which could reveal intelligence sources to the terrorists.
Labour lawyers urged the Government last night to change the law to allow
the men to be prosecuted or released.
Vera Baird QC, the Labour MP for Redcar, said: "What is key is to try to
prosecute such people we can prove are terrorists. That is the right
approach." Tony Blair was also warned last night by a senior backbench
critic of the anti-terrorist legislation that he will face a damaging battle
with his own side if he defies the convention on human rights.
Bob Marshall-Andrews QC said: "I have written to the Home Secretary saying
that he should back off. If he gives an undertaking that jury trial is
sacrosanct and he is going to review the law after the Belmarsh judgment, we
will be happy. If not, there will be great difficulty in the run-up to the
election." He said Mr Blair was inviting a "constitutional crisis" if he
refused to accept the law lords' ruling. Labour lawyers are pressing
ministers to prosecute the detainees if they have evidence, or loosen their
detention so they can visit their families.

 Giano
Si, vabbe'. Il governo di Blair rischia di andare a problemi di 
rielezione se i diritti di qualche diecina di terroristi non vengono 
salvaguardati. Se permetti considero assai piu' grave la situazione di 
Roma, dove i diritti di *tutti* i cittadini sono conculcati dal 
monopolio dei media e dallo scontro con il giudiziario.
Am.

"amalric" <amalric...@REMOVEMEaliceposta.it> wrote in message 
news:amalricTOGLIMI-C38...@twister2.tin.it...

#_Anche vivendo cosi`lontano dall'Europa, mi sento piu`un cittadino di Essa 
che un campanilista italiano.
ho poca esperienza, per giunta, del sistema giudiziario made in Italy ( e di 
quello in generale); critico l'Italia e i suoi travagli un po' staccatamente 
ormai; un po' egoisticamente prlando: son cose tragiche li' da voi. 
Considero precaria la sua situazione attuale con una sorta di ras al di 
sopra del potere giuridico...(mai come ora le "bizzarrie" politiche italiane 
sono cadute nel ridicolo qui e l'appunto del SdC sulla legge"ad personam", 
purtroppo, neanche mi fa piu`ridere) le occasionali reazioni a cio`me le 
devo sorbettare a distanza di 20mila leghe, con qualche sberleffo che 
accomuna noi italiani agli antipodi tutti nello stesso calderone della 
vergogna dei pochi che appoggiano il governo Berlusconi.
Ho sempre ammirato d'altro canto il sistema giudiziario britannico e il 
senso di etica ěnsito nell'esecutivo; e`per questo che il rifiuto del 
Governo Britannico mi sorprende e mi sgomenta allo stesso tempo. In un 
periodo di cosi`importanti cambiamenti in Europa e la crisi morale etica che 
ne consegue , avrei preferito vedere il Governo dei labouristi schierarsi 
con le decisione dell' High Court dando un segno di volersi staccare dalla 
politica di quegli USA che si avviano a diventare un monopartito.
Giano 

 quello in generale);
Sei riuscito a scappare in NZ prima che ti beccassero, eh?
Palmiro Pangloss
-- 
"Poi udii la voce del Signore che diceva: <Chi mandero'? E chi andra' 
per noi?> Allora io risposi: <Eccomi, manda me!>"
Isaia 6:1-8

 Allora io risposi: <Eccomi, manda me!>"
#_No..tu no!
GhGhGhGh! 

 Giano 
Be' questo lo trovo interessante perche' e' una cosa che stavo notando 
anch'io. Blair fa la predica tutti i giorni, ma razzola assai male, e la 
sua politica dello spin dell'opinione pubblica e' una spia di questa 
schizofrenia, che come tu noti e' indice di crisi morale etica.
E se verra' rieletto, e' opinione comune, sara' perche' non c'e' un PM 
alternativo
Am.

"amalric" <amalric...@REMOVEMEaliceposta.it> wrote in message
news:amalricTOGLIMI-327...@twister2.tin.it...

#_All'ultimo congresso tenutosi a Settembre il MP delle Finanze Gordon Brown
ha fatto una buonissima impressione: il suo discorso e` stato molto
apprezzato e mi pare che si e` parlato di lui come probabile successore.
Il suo discorso completo lo si trova qui:
http://www.labour.org.uk/ac2004news?ux_news_id=ac04gb
ne riporto una parte:
................................
................................
A patriotic vision
learning from but different from America whom I admire for its enterprise
but where - with 45 million without health insurance - great economic
success is not matched by great social justice;
learning from but different from the rest of Europe which has greater social
cohesion but where, with 19 million out of work, that social cohesion is not
matched by economic dynamism.
Our mission for Britain is both prosperity and justice for all.
And in our generation, I want us to build a shared national purpose, a
British progressive consensus, much more than a set of individual policies
announced by politicians but a set of beliefs that come to be shared by the
British people - that Britain can lead by example as the first country of
the global age where prosperity and justice advance together.
Our task therefore is not to consolidate the politics we inherited but by
our words and deeds to transform people's view of what in our country is
possible.
To seek to win not just votes but hearts and minds to a shared national
purpose - far beyond the ranks of our party or any party.
And today we have to realise this vision amidst a profound set of economic
changes unparalleled in our economic history which we can only meet by a
unity of purpose together.
.......................
......................