Rule of law
The events of the past four weeks represent a significant and deliberate attack on the rights defence community, and reveal a lack of respect for the profession which is at odds with government rhetoric around rule of law.
If we want to build a safer and more prosperous world, there needs to be a rapid, massive and sustained increase in the number of people who have access to justice.
The coalition government has much to answer for since 2010. Yet what seems to escape almost all notice is their relentless attacks on the very fabric of British democracy. The conventional guarantee against totalitarianism in any democratic society is the Rule of Law, separation of powers, and public access to legitimate scrutiny of executive action. This was arguably a well-founded existence in Britain, until recently.
We Europeans did nothing to help Tunisia achieve its revolution in January 2011. Yet, today, we can and must support the most successful of the Arab Spring countries - because we know that democracy can never be taken for granted.
The challenge presented by Serbia's accession is symptomatic of a larger problem that has become apparent as the EU's frontiers have expanded. Almost all European countries outside the EU want the rights and opportunities that come with full membership.
On Monday our glorious Home Secretary faced questions from the equally wonderful Shadow Home Secretary in Parliament over
At present EU law is supreme to UK law and this is a major sticking point for many Eurosceptics and is often used as an argument for the UK's exit from the EU. But what would the legal implications of the UK's exit from the EU actually be? Would EU law be completely rejected in favour of national law?
Lord Newton and Lord Tebbitt Could Teach the Conservatives About Their illusions of Justice and Society
The Legal aid Bill gave the coalition government the most defeats of any bill in parliament for the last sixty years. In the end government only won by one vote in the house of Lords. A vote they would not have had if Lord Newton was still around to vote.
The debate over indefinite detention should not be one about scope - in fact, there shouldn't even be a debate. To deny any individual due process is a basic violation of human rights and is fundamentally wrong under all circumstances.
We simply cannot afford to allow our government to go unscrutinised, most of all in amid the bleak seeming imperatives of the 'war on terror'. It's not that they can't be trusted with that sort of power; it is that no one can.