Longrider

I said yesterday that reports of Charles Clarke rethinking his controversial suspension of habeas corpus was, perhaps, premature. Seems I was right. Not that I take any pleasure in it. Indeed, he plans to press ahead - this is part of the New Labour pledge to control our borders. He told Sky News:

“What I said in the House of Commons was that we would be introducing a regime of control orders, up to and including the ability to restrict people on the premises they live, and that is what we will be doing.”

There is a glimmer of hope on the horizon, however. The Tories are finally getting some moral fibre and springing (if a little creakily) to the defence of our cherished liberties alongside the Liberal Democrats. This means that should they follow through, (and work together) a defeat in the Lords is highly possible.

Liberty are outspoken in their condemnation of the proposals and along with other critics (including myself) believe that the government should prosecute and try suspects if they have sufficient evidence. If they don’t have the evidence then they have no right to detain. That someone might commit an offence is just not good enough. Any of us could find ourselves on the wrong side of the party in power and at the whim of the Home Secretary be detained because we might pose a threat to national security with no recourse to the evidence against us. The government’s argument is that putting the evidence before the courts will compromise agents in the field. Fine, hold the proceedings in camera. They argue too, that evidence such as telephone bugging is not admissible evidence. Okay, if they can dispose of habeas corpus at the drop of a hat, can they not amend evidence requirements? Of course they can - however, doing so would mean that political dissidents cannot be detained at the whim of politicians.

Cynical? Moi?
—–

Over at his blog Big John is having a go at the burying of an inconvenient story by releasing (leaking) “good news” - the marriage announcement of Charles Prince of Wales and Camilla Parker-Bowles. I want to take a sideways look at the thing.

Now as a staunch republican, I really couldn’t give a hoot what they do - and believe me all the hyperbole about what the nation thinks and the constitutional ramifications make me want to heave. Does it matter if one or either of the couple is a divorcee? It seems that the sanctimonious Church of England thinks so. Excuse me, but a little history lesson is in order here. The Church of England exists because a monarch decided to defy the church of Rome and get a divorce. Yes, the whole rotten corrupt edifice is built on divorce. Henry VIII was a divorcee and it was okay for him. Mind you, he also murdered two of his consorts but I’m not suggesting that’s okay.

Hypocrisy abounds here and it leaves a foul odour in its wake. It still lingers from the nineteen thirties’ abdication crisis and the nineteen fifties when Princess Margaret wanted to Marry Group Captain Townsend whereupon the same stuffy nonsense was regurgitated. Personal happiness was sacrificed in the name of “duty”. What duty - what exactly do these people do that is so dutiful? And what do they do that requires them to live by such ridiculous codes of conduct? Certainly morality doesn’t come into it as extramarital affairs abound and seem to be accepted. Indeed, it is almost obligatory for Princes of Wales to cast their wild oats far and wide - at least if history is accurate. If that is so, then marriage to a divorcee is certainly not an issue.

Then there’s the nonsense about what Camilla will be called - not princess of Wales, but Duchess of Cornwall. Not Queen, but Princess Consort. So what? Should we care? I watched people being interviewed on the BBC News last night and between bouts of nausea, I heard one woman insist that Charles remain single because that is what is right. Is it? Okay, he screwed up. Certainly the Royal family treated his first wife badly, but how would staying single make any difference and whose business is it anyway other than theirs? Which of us has not done or said things which we now deeply regret? Which of us is so pure we can cast judgement?

How many of us made errors of judgement in our youth? For Charles, it was going to sea without marrying Camilla. Had he followed his heart then a great deal of heartbreak would have been avoided - and, indeed, this discussion. Now, thirty years later, they choose to do what they intended to do all those years ago. And why not?

If this country was a republic, it wouldn’t even be an issue - now there’s a thought.