My letter to David Davis via his 'Freedom' website

I wrote a letter to DD and his team on the freedom website he launched. I didn't totally expect a reply but given the hu-ha he made about speaking to people I expected some reply fobbing me off. As it is I got nothing, so I decided to post the letter here.

Contents in full below, sent on June 17th:

Hello David (or Team David),


Good luck in your campaign but I do have a few questions:


Why does 42 day detention go against the Magna Carta but 28 day detention (typo: should say 'doesn't!), which you voted for?


Isn’t the death penalty an infringement on civil liberties?


If you are against ID cards, why did you vote for them in 2004?


What happened between following the Tory whip on ID cards in 2004 and resigning now in 2008 to change your mind so extremely?


Why were you against the repeal of Section 28 if you’re such a defender of Liberty?


Why did you vote against the equalisation of the age of consent for gay people?


Why did you vote to lower the abortion limit, which would infringe on the womans right to control her own body?


Why are you on record not asking for a reduction of CCTV, but saying it should be brought up to ‘evidential standard’?


I look forward to hearing from you as I believe these are the serious issues you have to face if you want to lay claim to being a true libertarian.


Many thanks,



Since then he's explained he's against 42 days because there are changes to the system that could be made to make extending detention without charge unnecessary. However that doesn't explain why 28 days is not against Magna Carta and Habeus Corpus or whatever, but 42 days is.

The CCTV comment is because his actual stance on CCTV isn't that we should reduce the number, but they should be better quality. I feel that his inclusion of 'cctv' when he talks about the state 'snooping' and 'spying' on people is therefore misleading, as he has no intention of reducing CCTV numbers.

Original post here.



Display: Sort:

Re: Davis right on 42 days (#1)

Al

These are all fair questions, and good party political point scoring, and I think we know that Davis' record on some issues is not one that most Labour Party members would share - myself included.

But, on 42 days and the general encroachment on our civil liberties I think Davis is on the right side of the argument and unfortunately our leader and home secretary are on the wrong side.

One might equally well ask Gordon Brown why he is pursuing the 42 days issue when even the former head of MI5 is against it...

I think that what would be unforgiveable would be to use the Parliament Act (on such an important matter of principle) to push through this legislation against opposition in the Lords. Unforgiveable.

Is it a (not very) cunning plan? (#2)

I have to agree that all the questions have merit and highlight that Davis is a very flawed advocate for the freedom agenda. I also have to agree - as does the Labour home poll at the moment - that 42 days, even in exceptional cases is a terrible policy and that Labour is on the wrong side of the freedom argument.

The suspicion, despite the claims that it's in the best interest of the country, is that 42 days is a device to set the agenda. Getting it through the Commons was hard enough, but we all know that it won't pass the Lords. So must Gordon.

So, armed with this knowledge, why bother? The timetable if defeated by the Lords is clear if it's really so important: back to the commons, then the Parliament Act. That means a year's delay and takes the issue right up to the 2010 date.

Surely the intention isn't to brand the Tories soft on terrorism? Please tell me I'm wrong... 

Time to get real (#3)

Why were you against the repeal of Section 28 if you’re such a defender of Liberty?

Why did you vote against the equalisation of the age of consent for gay people?


Why did you vote to lower the abortion limit, which would infringe on the womans right to control her own body?

It's called having a sense of morality and not falling for all this equality bull that's destroying society.

In my opinion there is something very wrong with someone who thinks that liberty means:

a) allowing buggery to be promoted to children

b) allowing 16-year-olds to commit buggery (or anyone, for that matter)

c) giving women the 'right' to control their own bodies by killing their unborn children.

You don't even know what liberty is, do you? It's not about doing whatever you want and to hell with morals or anyone else, including the holocaust of the unborn.

 

Re: Time to get real (#4)

I wonder if you could provide an intellectual argument to prove that homosexuality is wrong.

You cannot 'promote' homosexuality to children, as Tony Banks pointed out during the debate on Section 28.

The only 'intellectual' arguments ever found, are tripe. They say things like all gay men constantly go around fisting each other, and that half eat their own faeces. This cannot be backed up.

Could you even provide an intellectual argument for the existance of God? If you can, than why should we submit to the will of God? Why is homosexuality the main focuspoint of Christianity? Do you eat shellfish? Are you against slavery? Do you oppose nurses working on sundays, and if you have friends who are nurses, are you morally obligated to killing yourself, or is it ok to call the police? Have you ever eaten pizza with pepperoni on it? Should we get DEFRA employees to give direct subsidies to farmers, and then stone them to death while they're there, because the farmer plants two different crops. Would you have recommended that when the Wimbledon tennis final was being played the other day, that the 5-times champion Roger Federer should be burnt because he wore a cardigan over his shirt and shorts?

Re: Time to get real (#5)

I could equally ask you to provide an intellectual argument to prove that homosexuality is not wrong.

I say it's wrong because:

a) The Bible says it's wrong.

b) Nature says it's wrong. The very purpose of body parts is at complete odds with homosexual behaviour.

c) Most people's moral compass/conscience/instincts alert them to it being wrong. People other than perhaps sociopaths realise there are penalties to pay for wrongdoing.

d) It is a lifestyle typified by infidelity and disease.

You cannot 'promote' homosexuality to children, as Tony Banks pointed out during the debate on Section 28.

Peter Tatchell wrote a piece last month exposing the inadequacy of the genetic explanation for sexuality and also said this:

Many studies suggest social factors are also important influences in the formation of sexual orientation.

These include the relationship between a child and its parents, formative childhood experiences, family expectations, cultural mores and peer pressure.

By about the age of five or six, a combination of biological and social influences seem to lay the basis of an individual's sexual orientation.


A lot of false suppositions seem to be touted when taking a PC view of 'alternative' lifestyles, like it's all genetic or upbringing has nothing to do with it. As a society we are starting to find reasons and excuses for wrong behaviour, including criminal behaviour and trying to blot out the notion of sin.

We're on a loser.

Could you even provide an intellectual argument for the existance of God?

I could, but I don't to people who aren't serious about wanting to know. It seems to me that if Christ Himself was introduced to most people, they would still refuse to believe.

Why is homosexuality the main focuspoint of Christianity?

It's not of course, but secular humanists, homosexuals and bad churches might make you think otherwise.

Christianity is about repenting and believing to receive salvation through the blood of the Lamb who was slain at Calvary. It was Christ who defeated Hell and death, which is why there is no other safe way out of this world and why evil is having its way right now like never before to try and convince the world we can live as we please without consequence.

To be a Christian means accepting certain responsibilities, like seeking to behave in the right way and helping others do the same, because the wages of sin is death.

Your comments about Old Testament laws have been nicely updated, but I'm not Jewish!

Re: Time to get real (#6)

Again, what proof do you have that homosexuality is typified by infidelity and disease? Noone can provide evidence that gay people are more promiscious. Well, I suppose they are considered more promiscious by extremists like yourself because they have sex when they are not married. Wow, that is a quagmire. Maybe, and this is a whole new idea, we should allow gay people to marry. In fact, nature seems to see it as normal. Are animals able to make subconscious decisions about their sexuality? Because there are animals in other species that have gay sex. It isn't gay adoption that makes dolphins have sex with same-gendered dolphins. Science would probably indicate that in evolutionary terms (which I suppose you don't believe) that this would be applicable to humans. That it isn't a choice. Again, the Bible says a lot of crazy shit. I'm glad you brought up the New Testament, because I find it more evil than the Old Testament. I would really like to hear the intellectual argument for God's existance. Please tell me it. I find the New Testament more evil, because the supposed God employs the most disgusting form of masochism in trying to get Abraham to murder his first born. It also exposes a suspicion that religion is man made. None of the gospels can come up with a single concencus on the crucifixion (luckily we now have an Australian fascist ham actor telling us the real account). Another argument for the man made concencus, is that Jesus and his desciples could not have been 'Christians'. This illiterate gaggle could not have identified as Christians as they had no idea that an ideology would be found on the basis of their master's pronouncements, and they were never to read books that are essential for Christians to believe in for them to affirm belief. You are entitled to your own belief, but you're not entitled to your own facts. You cannot prove that the majority of people share your beliefs or hatred of homosexuality. You can not believe evolution. But, emperical evidence disproves much of the holy scriptures. Why is it that all messiahs, in all religions, have been born a virgin's birth? Why is it that Mary has no recollection of the Archangel Gabriel telling her that her son, was the son of god? This further exacerbates the notion that religion was manmade. Homosexuality is more likely to be genetic. People in the higher realms of society have condemned it for centuries, but have been secretly engaging in it. They believe it will help them escape it. That's why religious figures have engaged in it. Priests do it to this day. It is not encouraging a culture where gay men and women can come out that encourages peversion, it is a culture where it is banned which encourages peversion. Do you think that if Christianity had been more welcoming of homosexuality, that there wouldn't have been the raping of young boys in the Catholic church? I do. Indeed, and relating to the virgin birth matter, there seems to be a strange link with gay seperatism. Gay seperatists feel a superiority complex over straight couples, and often, a loathing of women. Religions do just that. The very fact that all the monotheisms have misogyny as a central plank, further solidifies the belief that religion is man made. Many outwardly homophobic men, actually often have secret sexual feelings for homosexual men, even if they are straight, but they feel threatened by them. I can't tell you the number of religious extremists who I know at school, who I know are gay, despite their gay-bashing. Anyway, on virgin births, what other reason could explain that common trait in all religions, except of the common trait of misogyny, of why these are the only births in history to have been born to those of virgins? Islam allows for young girls to be mutilated, it is not female circumcision, but it is mutilation. Judaism requires orthodox believers to thank god every day that they are not women. Indeed, everything about religions seems to indicate a hatred of female genitalia. I may support gay rights, but this is a view which I don't share. Oh, finally, I know they are Old Testament doctrines. So why do you adhere to the laws about homosexuality? If, when I have questioned homophobic Christians about this, and they say God allowed free will, but this free will can allow us to determine his belief that homosexuality is wrong, doesn't this again indicate man made belief? And the churches have a fond history of adhering to Old Testament laws. Particuarly slavery. But if you say you are not Jewish, than why adhere to this particular law about homosexuality?