Resignation 'threatens drug ban'

Mephedrone is legal and widely available

Another senior government drugs adviser has quit, hours before ministers were expected to ban a new "legal high".

The resignation of Dr Polly Taylor from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has sparked speculation that the ban on mephedrone could be delayed.

Lib Dem science spokesman Dr Evan Harris said Home Secretary Alan Johnson's ban would have to wait until the council was "properly constituted".

There's a good blog post here from Rory Cellan-Jones on the correspondence (obtained by the BBC under the Freedom of Information act) behind the Digital Economy Bill lobbying by the UK music industry, including downloadable documents.

 

Jim Killock, 25 March 2010

To: Richard Mollet and Feargal Sharkey

Cc: Adam Liversage

Dear Richard and Feargal,

I am writing to ask for clarification on an important point: do you believe the Digital Economy Bill requires full debate in the House of Commons?

The Bill has been debated in the Lords, but it has not received scrutiny and debate from the democratically elected chamber of Parliament.

The Open Rights Group strongly believes that full democratic scrutiny is vital for this Bill, since it includes measures that would affect people’s access to vital services and to free speech – rights that should not be legislated away without full debate of all the consequences.

Your organizations have recently appeared to be in favour of excluding genuine debate in the Commons from the passage of the Bill, minimizing the scrutiny given to its most controversial clauses.

The leaked email from Richard to BPI members, and statements from Richard Mollet and Feargal at Counter2010 and the Black Music Congress event on Tuesday all suggest that your view is that the Bill should be passed as rapidly as possible, before the General Election - without further scrutiny, if necessary.

However, you are now making statements that effectively deny that this is your position.

I and other campaigners would be very grateful if you would clarify whether you do in fact support full democratic scrutiny of the Digital Economy Bill. And, if so, ask you to join us in calling, clearly and publicly, for a full debate of its provisions in the House of Commons.

Yours sincerely,

Jim Killock

Executive Director, Open Rights Group

I never did like the Undertones.

Faisal al-Saadoon and Khalef Hussain Mufdhi, accused of murdering two soldiers, left at risk of unfair trial and execution in Iraq, European court finds

• Helen Pidd
• guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 2 March 2010 18.15 GMT
• Article history

 

The UK government was today condemned for violating the human rights of two Iraqis accused of murdering two captive British soldiers in 2003.

Faisal al-Saadoon and Khalef Hussain Mufdhi, Sunni Muslims and former officials of Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath party, have been detained for almost seven years. They are currently being held in the Rusafa prison near Baghdad.

The European court of human rights in Strasbourg unanimously found the pair were "at real risk of being subjected to an unfair trial followed by execution by hanging" in Iraq.

The finding reversed a decision made at the UK's highest court.

Saadoon and Mufdhi are accused of two of the most brutal killings of British personnel during the war.

On 23 March 2003, Staff Sergeant Simon Cullingworth and Sapper Luke Allsopp, both bomb disposal experts, were dragged from their vehicles during an ambush within days of the US-led invasion of Iraq.

They were taken to an intelligence base, shot and filmed as they lay dying surrounded by a baying mob. Their bodies were found in shallow graves a month later.

Saadoon, 57, and 59-year-old Mufdhi have been waging a long-running legal battle, arguing that the British army had been wrong to hand them over to the Iraqi authorities for trial in December 2008.

They claim the transfer put them at real risk of torture and death by hanging after the Iraqi national assembly reintroduced the death penalty in 2004.

The two were tried by an Iraqi court in 2009 and cleared of the charges, but remain in custody pending an appeal by the prosecutor.

The European court of human rights ruled that Saadoon and Mufdhi had been "subjected to mental suffering caused by the fear of execution amounting to inhuman treatment" and awarded them €40,000 (£36,330) jointly in costs.

The judgment said: "For the court, compliance with their obligations under article three of the convention [which prohibits torture and "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment"] requires the government to seek to put an end to the applicants' suffering as soon as possible, by taking all possible steps to obtain an assurance from the Iraqi authorities that they will not be subjected to the death penalty."

Following the judgement, Tessa Gregory, of Public Interest Lawyers, which represented Saadoon and Mufdhi, said: "We call upon the UK government, in light of the severe criticisms made by the European court, to now do everything within its power to protect our clients from the death penalty and to seek their release so that they can, at long last, be reunited with their families.

"This case has been pursued for political purposes, and it is now time for the government to act."

The armed forces minister, Bill Rammell, said: "We are carefully considering the court's verdict.

"On 31 December 2008, we transferred to the Iraqi authorities, to face trial for war crimes, two Iraqis suspected of involvement in the murder of two British soldiers.

"At this point, we had no legal power to detain the suspects, and the court of appeal had unanimously ruled that they did not fall within the jurisdiction of the European convention on human rights.

"We transferred them having received credible assurances from the Iraqi government that they would be treated humanely in custody and we know that this has been the case.

"We have acted throughout in the interests of justice and in the interests of the families of the two murdered soldiers. We should all welcome the due legal process that is now being followed."

 

Schneier: CCTVs don't make us safer

By Cory Doctorow at 5:12 AM February 26, 2010

Bruce Schneier has written an outstanding essay for CNN on why sticking CCTV cameras on every corner doesn't make us safer, and can make us less safe by opening us up to abuse, and by causing police resources to be misallocated. This is required reading for the twenty-first century. Bruce points out that where there's a specific threat in a specific place -- casinos worried about cheats, shops worried about shoplifters, parking garages worried about skulking muggers -- CCTVs have some use. But as a catch-all solution to crime, they just don't work well enough to justify their expense in resources and liberty.

Pervasive security cameras don't substantially reduce crime. This fact has been demonstrated repeatedly: in San Francisco, California, public housing; in a New York apartment complex; in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; in Washington; in study after study in both the U.S. and the U.K. Nor are they instrumental in solving many crimes after the fact.

There are exceptions, of course, and proponents of cameras can always cherry-pick examples to bolster their argument. These success stories are what convince us; our brains are wired to respond more strongly to anecdotes than to data. But the data are clear: CCTV cameras have minimal value in the fight against crime.

Although it's comforting to imagine vigilant police monitoring every camera, the truth is very different, for a variety of reasons: technological limitations of cameras, organizational limitations of police and the adaptive abilities of criminals. No one looks at most CCTV footage until well after a crime is committed. And when the police do look at the recordings, it's very common for them to be unable to identify suspects. Criminals don't often stare helpfully at the lens and -- unlike the Dubai assassins -- tend to wear sunglasses and hats. Cameras break far too often.

Spy cameras won't make us safer

The Government is bowing to religious pressure and amending the Children Schools and Families Bill today to allow faith schools to teach about contraception and homosexuality in their own way. The National Secular Society's Executive Director Keith Porteous Wood opposes the amendment on the following grounds:

1. There is a greater, not lesser, need for objective sex education, for example on contraception and homosexuality, for children of parents with faith backgrounds - especially Catholic and minority faith backgrounds. They are more likely to have neglected sex education altogether because of their religious dogma.

2. The amendment is an infringement of children's human rights as it is likely to deny them objective information necessary for their future wellbeing.

3. It is cruel and damaging to teach gay children - or children who may become gay - (as religious bodies frequently do) that homosexuality is an "objective disorder" and a "strong tendency ordered towards an intrinsic moral evil.¹"

4. A major six-year study commissioned by the US Congress, released in 2007², has found that young people who took part in chastity programmes, much favoured by religious bodies, were just as likely to have sex as those who did not. Unfortunately those not receiving objective sex education are unlikely to take precautions, with devastating consequences for their future lives and those of their children.

5. Once more, the Government looks to be caving in to the demands of religious leaders and the result is that children are being betrayed, with potentially devastating effects on their future lives.

6. Many children of religious parents do not regard themselves as being religious and indeed many of the parents of children in these very many publicly funded religious schools are not of the faith of the school. They deserve better.

¹ Per a 1992 Vatican document

² http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2007/s1899734.htm