You may have listened to the BBC's "Any Questions" this week. In the programme, Baroness Williams of Crosby was asked whether she would go to prison for breaking the law on ID cards [if they were made compulsory], and she replied: "So be it - and I'm not suggesting any act of violence but we've got to not co-operate with something as bad as this."

Alan Duncan MP, Shadow Secretary for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, took Shirley to task. Mr Duncan said that as a legislator (in her case in the Lords), that she would be reprehensible to break the law - any law. He seemed to say it's OK for citizens to break the law in peaceful protest - and risk the consequences - but not if you're a "legislator".

I would like to ask what's so special about being a legislator that in face of an illiberal law such as the ID cards legislation, you can't take a principled stand for example by refusing to cooperate with the law as required by the law?

Where would we be if our legislators were prevented from making such peaceful protests as simple non-cooperation?

I think the Conservatives - through the leader David Cameron - should say this is a matter for a "free vote", a matter for personal conscience.

There can be laws - there are laws - which are so bad that peaceful non-cooperation is entirely appropriate even for legislators.

Now the last time I looked the upper chanber did not LEGISLATE it served as a review body. And usually fails to get its way. Historically because the Prime Minister would threaten to go to the sovereign with a list of new peers to create who saw things their way, and in more recent times thanks to the parliament act.

And so we are now left with asking whether it is right for members of the house of COMMONS to break the law they make. To which for a starter I will point out that Dawn Primarolo refused to pay the poll tax to the point of being dragged to court for it(at which point, I was told, someone else paid it for her).

But parliamentarians are above the law anyway.

Good question.

My feeling would be that the noble lady has the choice, it would be for her conscience.

Whether it would be a good idea is a different matter.

It would in some ways be little more than a gesture that would deprive the House of the noble lady's integrity and wisdom and although a criminal conviction would not exclude her from sitting in the House once her conviction was spent, nonetheless, the noble lady's job is to offer wise council, she cannot keep stomping out when she doesn't get her own way. She was elected to the House of Lords to keep the Commons in check now her Government has got decimated their Lordships house.

As a legislator, she is sworn to uphold the law not just abide by it.



No there are not.
If the laws are bad, that is because democracy has weighted the scales too far in one direction. The Commons makes the law and they act on behalf of the people. The House of Lords has no choice but to accept the will of the people. The Lords job is simply that of scrutiny - they don't make the laws ... the people do

If the British people have the sense to elect a Conservative Government, hopefully before the legislation kicks in in 2010 - neither Shirley Williams or anyone else would even need to risk it.

yeah i totally agree with votedave here. The ID cards scheme is a joke and i think its good that high profile people are open with their opposition.

Then the English people had better start telling their Scots overlords where they're going wrong.

And bloody well turn out at the election

I agree with Votedave, the way to get rid of this violation of our liberty is to vote Conservative and get this ID scheme scrapped. The Conservative party has warned those involved in making money producing the ID cards that it will be scrapped. Lets stay legal and get rid of it the proper way.

Alan Duncan is a fool if he thinks that "legislators" breaking the law is never justifiable.

What would he do if the Tory Party was declared a terrorist organisation, which could legally happen within a few hours of a minor emergency eg flooding?

It's called the Civil Contingencies Act and is a clone of the law Hitler used to gain absolute power.

It's not only Baroness Williams who would apparently risk jail by not cooperating with ID cards, I gather the two LibDem candidates for leadership would also risk jail.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/libdems/story/0,,2202171,00.html

On reflection and in light of Astrocat's observations, I agree it would be wrong for "legislators" (including MPs) to protest by breaking the law, even in the hypothetical case of a manifestly unjust law. Instead, since they swore to uphold the law, they should resign, release themselves from their oath, and then protest by breaking the law if they can justify that to themselves, risking jail if that's the legal penalty. Otherwise, I agree legislators should seek to change the law by legal means from within the legislature to which they were elected to serve, and in the case of ID cards, hold their noses and cooperate by providing the information required by the National Identity Register.

But I'm still uneasy. It's not as if we're talking about a deliberate illegal action such as trespass, secondary picketing, graffiti or throwing cobble stones at the riot police. In the case of ID cards, it could just be case of passive refusal to turn up to a Registry Office and answer personal questions.

I'm also uneasy about Alan Duncan's response to Baroness Williams on Any Questions. ID cards is such a good issue for the Tories - and for the LibDems. I felt that Alan's diatribe was intemperate and ill-judged and could have passionate opponents of ID cards voting LibDem rather than Tory. At the end of the programme, Alan seemed (if you weren't listening too carefully) to be taking the side of David Blunkett on the issue of ID cards.

BTW, there's also some discussion (but not as interesting of course!) over at the Spectator's blog:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/311586/cleggs-idea-would-give-the-lib-dems-more-of-an-identity.thtml

It is NuLabour who have perverted democracy and the rule of law in introducing this and other totalitarian Acts. MPs have effectively zero effect on legislation. Therefore they are not legislators. Even if they were, they should do whatever their conscience and constituents demand.

Dave



I thought the Civil Contingencies Act emergency powers could only be brought in following approval from Parliament and are solely for the purpose of dealing with acts of terrorism that threaten the security of the UK - and not for difficulties presented by emergencies such as flooding.

Astrocat said


I say that is what you are supposed to think

I understand that particular piece of legislation can be used to suspend general elections. I believe there's a chap called Musharraf that just tried the same stunt.

I see "anti-terrorist" legislation used by the metropolitan police to remove protestors against an arms fair. And I see the same liglslation used againt a septuagenarian who had the audacity to stand up in a party political conference and heckle the prime minister. And before any "Cameroonies" try telling me they'd never do the same thing I say "round objects" you'd jump at the chance to exert the same level of control over the population and we all know it.

And as for "the approval of parliament" being needed well excuse me but how big is the labour majority again ? And how big was margaret thatcher's ?

Musharraf has called elections and is standing down from his military role so a state of emergency doesn't necessarily bring about unwelcome change or suspend the democratic process.

I suppose it depends how the levers of power are wielded - for good or for evil intent.

Hi Astrocat,

You have more faith in Musharraf than I do...

I think it's notable that 3 countries have declared a state of emergency/martial law in a month: Pakistan, Burma & Georgia. Are they expecting to get lost in the crowd or is something else going on?

Hi Astrocat. Possibly a poor choice of example on my part but hey how was I to know the big guy in the white house (well, actually the little guy in the white house with the big &%£!-off nucular misselles and serious pronunciation issues to boot) was going to lean on him.

I see a post by "davegould" entitled 'hitlers enabling act' which refers to the piece of legislation I was probably thinking about in my post.

Now I'm too young to know what happenned to our parliamentary process between 1939 and 1945.

My father and my father ii law were both too young to care at the time or remember since.

My two great uncles were too busy to care. One was too busy fighting Rommel in north africa. The other having refused to pick up a rifle on conscience grounds, was given the "option" of picking up a medical bag and a red cross armband instead. He was kept rather busy in the same desert - he spent his war picking up body parts, some of which were still screaming for their mothers.

But I wonder just how "extreme" the circumstances would have to be to warrant use of those powers. And my gut feeling having watched both parties who have been in government for the past thirty years is that both of them would cheerfully invoke the legislation once their poll popularity fell on the gorounds that they would do ANYTHING to put off the day of reckoning.

And if you think that cynical well perhaps I have watched the masters of cynicism at work in Number Ten and more so in Number 11 for quite a few decades now.

Hi Dave

Yes - It's very troubling that democratic provisions are so tenuous in the 3 countries who have declared states of emergency.

I suppose the 'war on terror' has many connotations and many fronts, not just military: but politically, socially and economically at whatever level it is fought.

Hi John,

I think we can call it extreme, when the potential of the opposition getting blown up at a political rally is a factor of the democratic process.

That would set back democracy and play into the hands of AlQuida and it's already tenuous enough.

I don't think the White House would have had to make that point by leaning too hard on the President.

I would prefer General Musharraf to resign his position as head of the Army sooner than Dec. 1st. Ideally, I would have prefered it to take place within the next 48 hours as transiting Mars in Cancer is opposite transiting Vesta conjunct Pakistan's natal Vesta in Capricorn and Capricorn rules the military in the Republic's 1947 chart.

And the country needs to know which side the military is on - there is no point to him delaying that process if he is clear about leading Pakistan to a democratic future.

I would also like him to lift the state of emergency to include the freedom of movement regarding the judiciary as Venus approaches Pakistan's descendant in Libra.

To do otherwise would be to invite unnecessary turmoil during this transition of power.

I agree with those who say that, in a democracy, those who make the law shouldn’t break it. The precedent this would set for picking and choosing which laws to obey would not be a good one.

The way for politicians to deal with the ID card scheme is to campaign against it in an election and then to repeal it.

David, have you never broken even a silly law? I bet you have.

Do you have an Ipod? Does your family?

Believe it or not David, copying copyrighted music you have BOUGHT AND PAID FOR on a CD without the express permission of the copyright holders (rarely provideed) onto an ipod or mp3 player is in fact ILLEGAL. It is a CIVIL offence rather than a criminal one.

The record companies have stated they do not agree with the law as it was not their intention to prevent people who had bought music from enjoying it, and stated they will not bring a lawsuit against anyone doing as such.

Have you ever copied a CD onto a cassette to play in the car? That is also illegail.

The only legal way to put music onto an ipod is to either get written consent in advance or get it from legal sites on the internet.

So for example, if you bought the latest madonna cd you would then have to buy it again online from for example, itunes t5o be legally able to listen to it on a cd player and also an ipod.

Of course you could just buy it online and then legally copy that download onto cd if the rights are provided to do that.

What is your view on that Dave? It is a silly law even those it is meant to protect (the record industry) do not agree with.

I also believe there are "dumb laws" still on the statue books which nobody agrees with which are hundreds of years out of date which nobody can be bothered to do anything about.

Check here for alleged dumnb UK laws still on the statute books

http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/international/united-kingdom/

Are you still sure all lawmakers should follow all laws no matter how dumb?


Another example from this site claims that



more detail is provided...



AS anside, in America there was a law against people throwing snowballs from tbe BBC News site:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4570720.stm



So here was a mayor (a lawmaker) that broke a "dumb" law he did not agree with.

Would really appreciate a reply on this one Dave.

Cliff

The link for copying music cds onto ipods is illegal

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article1938386.ece



Personally i think if someone buys a cd from a shop they should be able to legally copy it onto any media (another cd, casette, dat, minidisc, ipod, mp3 player) etc legally, providing it is for personal use of themselves and their immediate family they live with.

Are you shocked such a Dumb Law exists Dave? Would you "dob in" any concervative MPs you caught breaking this ridiculous law?

Cliff

chulcoop:

Regarding "Dumb laws" some of those are, I believe, apocryphal, others have been quietly swept up and binned over the years, but because of the way this is done people don't notice.

What usually happens is that, in the various Criminal Justice Bills or similar there's a note of laws repealed at the end that just mention "paragraph xx of section yy of such and such an Act".

Unless you actually know what that particular paragraph says, you probably won't realise that an old law has gone.

BBC Story about dumb laws still in existence.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4619942.stm

A lot of laws are left on the statute books ignored purely because of the time that would be wasted by parliament in removing them.

On this issue I have to disagree with DC and agree with what Nick Clegg said on the tele the other day.. something along the lines of needing people to stand up against what is blatantly wrong as a way of protecting our freedoms.

Another anomoly is that recording off the radio is illegal but recording off tv onto a video recorder is legal.

Radio 1 is broadcast on freeview which means it is considered "television".

Therefore, if someone records onto cassette tape off radio 1 they are breaking the law, wheras if they record radio 1 off freeview using a video recorder they are fully compliant with the law.

if the law has changed about recording off the radio i apologise but it was always the case (except after a silly period which said tv recordings could only be kept for 2 weeks, later repealed) recording off tv ok, recording off radio not ok.

Cliff