Burden of proof in British law.

Since this place is UK-heavy, I'd be curious to hear any of the UK'ers' views on this.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...until-proved-innocent-says-Boris-Johnson.html

 

Boris Johnson is the type of closet fascist that seems to be very common in the Conservative party. If people want to know why we need the human rights act then Teresa May is a reason in and of herself.

 

It's a difficult problem. There are potentially hundreds of British born, anti-Western extremists being trained as soldiers and bomb makers and terrorists in Syria and Iraq right now. That's too many for the security services to monitor should they all come home.

How do you deal with that?

 

I think he's smart enough to jump on the latest trendy band wagon and looks and acts daft enough that a lot of people like him. I also fear that he's probably saying something a lot of Brits would naturally want to agree with. Typical Tory soundbite politics though. No thought goes into the actual mechanics of how it would work but it sounds great.

I actually usually have a lot of respect for him as far as politicians go but on this one I think he is horribly wrong. There's a reason the police and the CPS need to find evidence to demonstrate someone's possible guilt. I would personally prefer it to stay that way.

 

You don't do away with the presumption of innocence. You just change the criteria for guilt. This is how lawmaking has always worked.

 

Does this also apply to those who go off and fight in other countries or for other countries armies or is this just another bout of anti-Muslim legislation? Why was it OK for UK citizens to go to Libya and oust their dictator but not to go to Syria and oust Assad? Does it extend to British Jews who go and fight in the Israeli army who are committing war crimes in Gaza?
The British have a long history of volunteering in other peoples wars, British fought on both sides of the American civil war, in the bush wars of Africa, the Spanish civil war and many served in mercenary armies in Africa in the 50's, 60's and 70's. There are no doubt many now serving in similar roles under the dubious legality of PMC's around the world. Are these also going to be put under observation?

 

I'm as critical of the IDF as anyone (more so than most, really), but not even I would try to compare the evil perpetrated by ISIS with the actions of the IDF.

ISIS are actively hostile to the west. They are our enemy whether we fight them or not.

 

What he's suggesting is that the police should be able to press charges against anyone who went to Syria or Iraq who can't prove they weren't there to learn to be or practice being a terrorist (if they didn't notify the authorities first). That's shifting the focus of proving guilt or innocence from the police and prosecution onto the person(s) arrested. That's a huge change in how the law works no matter how you word it. In any other area of the law there would be a massive outcry over the injustice of it.

The original letter he wrote, just 'cos commenting on an article about an article can be a pain in the backside:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ite-the-tide-of-terror-to-our-front-door.html

 

This is the crux of the matter. If we do away with the fundamental principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty, then we're no better than the dictatorships that we claim to oppose. We don't want another Guantanamo Bay.

The issue of British-born Islamists returning from Syria/Iraq and possibly causing problems over here is a serious one, and needs to be addressed. But not by messing with one of the fundamental tenets of our society. You don't defend freedom and democracy by taking away freedom and democracy.

 

IS and other factions are engaged in civil war in Iraq and Syria, Israel is bombing and murdering civilians who have little in the way of weapons to retaliate with other than their highly ineffective home made missiles.
But that is getting away from the point, why are Muslims being targeted by this legislation and not others who go to other countries to be trained to and fight in wars? Surely the government needs to be concerned about all who are going abroad to be trained and that includes those who go to Israel to fight in the IDF.

 

IS isn't simply 'engaged in civil war'. They are attempting to carry out genocide of everyone who isn't a Sunni.

Terrorist groups like Hamas aren't just using 'home made weapons'. They have pretty sophisticated missiles supplied from outside Gaza. Fortunately, Israel's air defences have stayed abreast of them so far and greatly reduced the number of civilian casualties.

Muslims aren't being targetted. Terrorists who masquerade as Muslims are being discussed, but there is no legislation yet.

Comparing the IDF with IS is ridiculous. As much as I deplore the sickening level of civilian casualties resulting from the recent Israeli actions in Gaza, the IDF isn't engaged in wholesale acts of genocide like IS is.

And more to the point, anyone returning from this country having served with the IDF does not pose any threat to this country.

 

That isn't how it would work though.

If the Government chose to try to restrict people travelling to places like Syria, they wont start charging people with existing offences without proof of guilt, they'll invent new offences where they can prove guilt.

You could do it with a reverse visa scheme. The Foreign (or Home) office could place some countries/regions on a restricted travel list that requires you to apply for a reverse visa in order to travel to that country. That visa will only be granted if you can show you have a legitimate reason to travel there and can place restrictions on your movements/activities whilst in that country. If you travel to one of those regions without a reverse visa or you violate one of the conditions, you are guilty of an offence and can be sentenced accordingly. You still get the presumption of innocence, you're just being found guilty of something that isn't currently a crime.

This is how lawmaking has always worked. The government identifies something it doesn't like and it passes a law criminalising it.

 

That's broadly true, but there have been notable exceptions. For example, suspension of Habeus Corpus back in the early nineteenth centrury (give or take a few years, I'm a bit vague about the date of that one.) And more recently, internment without trial in Northern Ireland in the early 1970's.

So while I would hope that there is no repeat of that sort of thing, with morons like Theresa May in office, you can't be sure.

 

generally, although not always in UK law, you are presumed innocent. but surely all you have to do is introduce something similar to a visa, meaning you can't board a plane in the UK to travel to these countries without your passport and a visa type document issued by the government. wouldn't; that solve the problem?

 

Visas are normally issued by the country you wish to visit. Holyhead's point about a 'reverse visa' is that the UK would issue it, therby restricting what our wayward citizens might get up to.

 

And the Brits who go to help fight against the tyrannical leaders of Syria are going to be a threat? Have those Brits who fought in the over throw of Gaddafi been a threat to the UK since their return?

 

IS is an extremist group with a professed terrorist, expansionist and anti-Western agenda, the overthrow of Assad is a milestone for them, not their aim. You're comparing apples and hubcaps.

 

IS is a group that wants to remove the western created borders and return the Middle East to the Islamic Caliphate it had previously been before the break up of the Ottoman Empire.

 

When exactly was the Iberian Peninsula part of the Ottoman Empire????
Also, still a very different proposition to the removal of Gaddafi.