tel
(07807) 840020
e-mail
jill@saward.org
Victims of sexual crime should come before suspected terrorists
by Jill Saward, 24th June 2008
The Tories are not renowned for wasting public money. So it is something of a surprise that a leading Conservative Member of Parliament should resign his seat and force a by-election at a cost of tens of thousands of pounds just so he can have a debate about an issue which the House of Commons has already debated and decided upon.
Why would anybody want to stand as a Member of Parliament if they are not prepared to accept the will of parliament when it makes a decision? So David Davis’ actions in causing a by-election in Haltemprice and Howden are unusual, to say the least.
But they are also deeply, deeply disturbing. Because David Davis isn’t only concerned about the possibility that a small number of suspected terrorists may be detained for up to 42 days, with safeguards, while the police are allowed to investigate - he’s also concerned about great swathes of other public protection measures.
Anybody who has seen television programmes showing footage obtained by Closed Circuit Television Cameras will be concerned that what was introduced for public safety is being abused. Safeguards can, and must, be put into place to ensure that CCTV is used solely for what it was intended - crime prevention and detection.
But David Davis wants to abolish it. It is part of what he calls a “long list of repressive measures” introduced over the last decade.
Another “erosion of British liberty” is the national DNA database. According to David Davis, neither this, nor the other security measures he now fights against, will make us safer. In fact, he describes it as “a myth to believe that we can defend our security by sacrificing our fundamental freedoms.”
David Davis appears to be very concerned about “British liberty.” But what does it mean? I want men and women - including children - to be at liberty to walk the streets of our towns and cities without fear of violence in general - and sexual violence in particular; and to feel safe in their own homes and workplaces.
And part of that “British liberty” is to expect the law enforcement agencies to use every tool at their disposal to catch the people responsible for the attack - and to never give up.
The National DNA Database has done just that. There have been numerous occasions when rapists have been convicted years after the attack - simply because, when the trail and investigation had gone cold, the DNA profile of the attacker had been retained. And when the rapist had been arrested years later, for something completely unrelated - the routine DNA test had provided a match.
Surely this is a good thing? This ensures our freedom, and our liberty. But Mr Davis wants to do away with it. If anything we should be expanding the national DNA database so that everybody’s DNA is on it.
DNA can rule people out of investigations as well as pointing the finger.
And CCTV - while not perfect, by any stretch of the imagination, is a valuable tool in the fight against crime. Just about every Magistrates and Crown Court in the country is now equipped to view CCTV footage. How many people have been convicted of all sorts of crimes thanks to the availability of CCTV?
Mr Davis thinks that by forcing a by election he is standing up for British Justice. In reality he is attempting to strike a hammer blow through the very tools the police need to keep us safe.
He claims that his decision to force a costly and meaningless by-election was driven by the ”draconian infringement of the citizen’s fundamental freedom not to be held in police detention for prolonged periods without being informed of the charges against him” - he calls this a “watershed in the erosion of British liberty.”
But in reality, this new law, if it completes its Parliamentary passage, would apply to a very, very few individuals, if any at all.
There are so many safeguards and provisos built into it that you
have to wonder whether anybody will ever be affected by it.
And yet at the same time, the issue of rape and sexual violence is
something that affects the freedoms and liberties of thousands upon
thousands of people - mainly women - each year. So you would assume
that as Shadow Home Secretary, David Davis would have had something
to say on the subject.
You’d be wrong!
A search on the Parliamentary website shows that David Davis only contribution in the House on rape is to ask four written questions about statistics.
So, maybe he used these statistics in campaigns elsewhere?
Again, you’d be wrong!
A search on the Conservative Party’s website produces only two results for “rape” (three if you count a “webcameron” version and a text version of the same item as separate). And David Davis, Shadow Home Secretary, has nothing to say on either of them.
One of the references is the interim report of the police task force. And apart from claiming that rape is not included in the British Crime Survey, contains nothing by way of recommendations to reduce the number of rapes or to increase the number of convictions.
The other mention is a speech by David Cameron in which he cites statistics from the same British Crime Survey (the one that the Conservatives say doesn’t include rapes) to state that “one in twenty adult women in the UK have been the victim of a rape.”
Apart from contradicting his own party’s report on police reform, David Cameron’s speech was full of warm words and helpful sympathy - but very little in the way of concrete action or delivery.
Now, here’s a little quandary.
David Davis wants to debate “British Liberties” on the basis of the 42 day pre-charge detention, national DNA database and the use of CCTV. But neither Labour nor the Lib Dems want to debate these issues through a phoney by-election.
And why should they? The House of Commons is the place MPs debate issues such as this.
But why should David Davis be allowed to set the terms of the phoney debate? We need a challenger to David Davis who will debate the issue of sexual crime and to force the issue onto the political agenda.
I’m not usually supportive of single issue candidates. I’m not sure what difference they can make. But David Davis wants a debate - so let him have one!
We need somebody to stand in the by election who will champion
the rights of women and men not to have their bodies violated.
We need somebody to stand in the by election who will force MPs and
politicians of all parties to pay serious attention to this issue.
And we need somebody to stand in this by election who will say
the national DNA database and CCTV are good things - just ask those
victims who have seen their attacker jailed for proof.
I’m not a politician. And I’m not normally party politically
motivated or aligned to any political party. But when a shadow home
secretary says nothing at all about such an important issue as
sexual violence which affects thousands of people each year; and
then resigns over an issue of limited pre-charge detention which may
not affect anybody at all - then somebody’s got their priorities
wrong and somebody needs to get the issue of rape onto the agenda.
There are just two days to go before nominations close in the Haltemprice and Howden by election. I’ve yet to decide whether my name will appear on the ballot paper.
But I’m considering it.