A visitor from Mars might wonder why the British Government has set up Wednesday as a battleground on which to stake its reputation; a Parliamentary showdown in which it proves it has the political muscle to introduce six-week long detention without trial.

Our Martian would observe that such dangerously radical countries as the USA, Canada and New Zealand each allow only two days before charges must be brought, and that no other country with a system of common law like ours detains people for as long as we do already.  He could only conclude, therefore, that our circumstances must be much worse than those of other countries and that our government had surrendered to heavy pressure from its security services.

Our mythical Martian, then, would be surprised to find that the Home Secretary, asked if MI5 were pressing for forty two days, replied ”No, not directly, but nor did they ask for the extension from 14 to 28, nor did they ask for the extension from 7 to 14.” At this point he might conclude that there was some other agenda in place.

I don’t mean to treat this lightly. Security issues are very serious; most nations, like ourselves, have experienced the horror or terrorist atrocities. The key difference, however, is that they have responded efectively without resorting to ever-lengtheing periods of detention without trial. Instead they work within their laws and introduce much less illiberal measures, like allowing intercept evidence in court and enabling post-charge questioning with judicial oversight.

In this way other countries build effective defences against terror, instead of the intellectually bankrupt approach of just lengthening the period in which people, often innocent people, can be held without trial in the name of protecting freedom. That is an approach which is bound to create resentment amongst those who are falsely imprisoned and bound to alienate the communities from which they come.

I don’t want to be cynical, but I can find no other explanation than that, having been humiliated elsewhere (especially in the 10p tax debacle) our Prime Minister wants to stamp his authority on his party and believes that this is a measure they will be nervous of opposing because it may be popular with the electorate.

Our hard-won freedoms are too important to be gambled away like that, and if I were a betting man I’d back my fellow citizens to share that conclusion.

What’s your view?

I recently received an appeal from NO2ID. It’s an organisation fighting the introduction of ID Cards. I have supported it previously, but perhaps I’ve grown complacent. The movement towards ID cards has been so slow that it’s been almost imperceptible. So I say well done to NO2ID for reminding me that those of us who care about this issue mustn’t let it overtake us by stealth.

I care passionately about ID cards because they will fundamentally change my relationship with the state. I willingly (if unenthusiastically) give the state information about my finances in order that it can make sure that I pay my taxes, and for that purpose only. I provide it with information about my age and residence in order that it can plan the services our community needs. As a citizen I consent to those things.

I do not consent to give the state my biometrics so that it is capable of keeping tags on where I go or who I meet. It’s not that I am so paranoid that I think it is after me, simply that I do not believe it has a right to the information about any of us until, or unless, there is reasonable suspicion that we are doing something illegal.  

I do not consent to give the state an open-ended source of database information about me. I cannot trust it’s benevolence only to use any information it gets for the benefit of society as a whole. I am cynical enought to believe that the more information government has, the more likely it is to abuse it should there be some advantage to it in doing so.

In order to consent to these things I’d have to be very sure that the risks I ran in handing over all that information was going to make the world a much safer place for everyone else, and no less safe for me. Actually I believe it would be less safe for us all. All that knowledge collected together makes us very vulnerable. We’re generally advised to shred anything with just our address on it, not pool together all our data in a single place. Neatly collected, human error, malice, bad luck or computer hackers breaking systems for the hell of it can put all this data at risk at one go. And which of those has government shown itself to be immune from?

If you’re interested in the issue, take a look at www.no2id.net .

If you care about this issue, let me know. I’d love to see an active group locally. I’m sure there are plenty of us fellow-thinkers in Consett if only we knew who each other were!