Writing about web page http://politics.guardian.co.uk/attacks/story/0,1320,1436086,00.html
As stated in my last entry, i think its high time for a serious blog from me. So here we are, back to good old politics…
Some of you may be aware of the debating that has been occuring recently in Parliament. Basically, some of the anti – terrorism laws that the government drew up in 2001 post 9/11 have deemed to be illegal by the House of Lords, breaching the Human Rights Act 2000 that enshrines UN human rights into British law.
The Law Lords ruled previously that this illegal law would end this week, thus, frantic negotiating has ensued between the Commons and the Lords, and between Labours frontbenchers, backbenchers, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.If that didnt reach a deal, politicians would be faced with the reality of suspected terrorists,who have been in prison for over 3 years, simply walking free. To combat this, the Labour government have been lobbying for new terrorist detainee laws, that of 'house arrest' whereby a suspected terrorist can be held in a secure residence ('home') and be monitored accordingly.
There are two conflicts that have arisen over this week.
Firstly, Tony Blair really is in a no-win situation here. Libertarians are heckling him because house arrest, without due trial is still in breach of peoples civil liberties. Based on this legislation, you or me could end up under house arrest, if the relevant people had enough evidence to suggest that you or me were involved in terrorism - in the case of terror, they argue, "innocent till proven guilty" has been thrown out of the window... However if Blair doesnt crack down hard on suspected terrorists, and there is a bomb in Britain, like the Madrid Bombing 2004, or a plane attack like in New York and Washington 2001, there would be a massive public outcry - asking "Why wasn't this provented?".

Tony Blair recognises this fact. Here are a few quotes showing how he has changed his mind on the whole liberty vs safety conflict :
"How can a country priding itself on its civil rights arrange that a man is deported without even a hearing?"(August 1979)
bq. "The liberty of a subject should be taken away not by the act of a politicain, but by a court of law." (March 1994)
bq. "Considerations of national security have to come before civil liberties, no matter how important those civil liberties are." (February 2005)
As these three show, of course Blair and Labour think liberty of the individual is important, but for him and the party, the safety and concerns of the state as a whole must be held as a higher priority than the concerns of one individual… whether this is the correct approach to take or not is obviously very contentious. Personally, i am still mulling it over…(Classic sit-on-the-fence-position im afraid!)
Secondly, (and don't worry, this points just short…im nearly done!!), is the issue of the elected House of Commons finding their efforts to pass legislation blocked by the unelected House of Lords. Many times over the last few days this has happened, with the Lords trying to add certain clauses into the bill that the government really do not want, so each chamber has been rejecting the others proposals. Obviously, in terms of liberty, we owe a massive debt to these unelected peers – defenders of our liberty. But on a democratic level, this is ludicrous! They are spoiling the ability of the elected chamber to pass the bill, thus totally underminig democracy…