prime minister david cameron and deputy a new … minister david cameron and deputy prime minister...

ISSN 1465-5276

Liberty, formerly Civil Liberty Agenda, is published quarterly by Liberty, the National Council for Civil Liberties, 21 Tabard Street, London SE1 4LA

www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk

Editor Sarah Jackson Design Sparkloop (www.sparkloop.com)

Print Reflex Litho Ltd

Liberty is affiliated to the Federation Internationale des ligues des Droits de l’Homme (FIDH)

In thIs Issue:

news In BrIef Liberty supports gay couple in B&B discrimination case; Investigating election day chaos; Child immigration detention case; Torture and secrecy; Why Liberty is intervening in John Gaunt’s case against Ofcom 2-3

CampaIgn newsAct now to end control orders with our new Liberty Guide to Campaigning 4

parlIament watChPolicy Officer Anita Coles takes a closer look at the proposals in the Queen’s Speech 5

every sIngle womanIntroducing Asylum Aid’s campaign to highlight the experiences of women in the asylum system 8

lIBerty’s new homeDirector of Development Lee Rodwell answers your questions 9

IntervIew Erasing David director David Bond talks to us about his feature documentary 10

memBershIp newsNews, notices and ways to get involved with our campaigns 11

30 seCond IntervIewLiberty’s receptionist answers our questions 12a new dawn…

but is the human rights act safe?The new Government has already ushered in some huge victories for rights and freedoms in the UK but the future of the HRA still hangs in the balance Page 6

Prime Minister David Cameron and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg

THE

PR

ImE

mIN

ISTE

R’S

OFF

ICE

, 20

10

●2 liberty Summer 2010

News in brief

The new coalition Government has bound itself together with the language of civil liberties, and there is much to celebrate in their initial proposals. Scrapping the ID card scheme and the National Identity Register, adopting a smarter and fairer DNA retention regime, and repealing scores of unnecessary criminal and counter-terror laws will address some of the erosions of fundamental rights and freedoms we have fought together in recent years.

We are also told, however, that a Commission will be established to investigate replacing the Human Rights Act. This may be the first and most crucial test of the new coalition. The Liberal Democrats have been among the proudest defenders of the Human Rights Act, while some Conservatives instinctively prefer “British liberties” — freedom that attaches to nationality rather than humanity. I am proud to be a national of a country that can count free speech, fair trials and the rule against torture among its finer virtues. But a retreat from human rights towards “citizens’ privileges” is the road back to Guantánamo Bay.

In the coming months we will be working to make sure the promised changes are delivered fairly, that control orders and lengthy pre-charge detention are mopped up with the other excesses of the War on Terror, and that nothing undermines the common values protected by our Human Rights Act.

We can’t do it without you. Please continue your vital support for our campaigns, and together we’ll continue to fight for our rights and freedoms and hold every new government to account.

Shami Chakrabarti Director of Liberty

michael Black and John morgan booked a room and paid a deposit for their stay at a Berkshire Bed and Breakfast, but were turned away by the owners when they arrived at the B&B in march. Despite protestations from mr Black that this could be unlawful discrimination, the owners refused to allow the couple to stay as it was 'against their convictions'.

Liberty is supporting mr Black and mr morgan in their discrimination claim. We believe this case is as important to the principle of non-discrimination as Rosa Parks' refusal to go to the back of the bus. A business with a "no gays policy" is as bad as one that says "no blacks; no Irish". Liberty defends the rights of religious groups to preach their beliefs, even when we disagree with them, but not to discriminate in the provision of goods and services.

Liberty supports gay couple in B&B discrimination case

Torture & SecrecyShami Chakrabarti

In may Liberty welcomed the new coalition Government’s announcement of an inquiry into alleged British complicity in torture, just weeks after the Court of Appeal again rejected the former Government’s attempt to subvert open justice in the case of Binyam mohamed.

Binyam mohamed and other former detainees have been seeking to sue the UK government for complicity in torture and the previous Government had asked the Court to adopt a secret procedure for the hearing of the case. Under this procedure the claimants and their lawyers would be excluded from the hearing and from seeing the judgment in their case. Liberty, Justice and a number of media outlets intervened in the case to defend the principles of open justice under the common law, and at the start of may the Court ruled against the Government.

The slow drip of revelations about British complicity in torture has undermined trust in our public servants. We will be calling for the new inquiry to be led by a senior judge with no obvious connections to the security establishment and allowed full access to all levels of classified material at home and abroad. It must cover the wide range of allegations including use of UK airspace and territory and the extent of the security establishment’s knowledge of interrogations by third parties – and any findings must be presented openly and transparently.

liberty Summer 2010 ●3

News in brief

Some members may have been surprised to hear last year that Liberty is intervening in support of “shock jock” Jon Gaunt’s case against Ofcom. After all he once called Liberty’s director “the most dangerous woman in Britain”. But this is an important case about freedom of expression – protected by article 10 of the Human Rights Act – and we put past jibes to one side in order to defend an act of political free speech.

Jon Gaunt’s job on TalkSport radio was to encourage lively debate in a style that is famously colourful and frequently offensive. During a heated live interview about Redbridge Council’s policy of banning smokers from becoming foster parents, mr Gaunt called a Conservative Councillor a “nazi”, a “health nazi” and an “ignorant pig”. He later apologised on air, but was sacked by TalkSport within days of the interview. Ofcom’s subsequent finding that mr Gaunt had breached the Broadcasting Code effectively vindicated TalkSport’s decision.

There are of course limits on free speech and it would be nonsensical to protect absolutely one person’s right to speak freely when this would have a grave impact on the rights of others – incitement to murder being an obvious example. But there is no right not to be offended. Ofcom’s regulatory duty was to decide whether the TalkSport interview constituted a failure to protect the public from material that is harmful. In the circumstances, Ofcom’s finding sets a dangerous precedent against freedom of expression, within which the right to speak freely on political matters is deserving of the greatest constitutional protection.

Liberty is intervening in an important High Court case which concerns the detention of children in immigration removal centres. We welcome the new Government’s commitment to end detention of children for immigration purposes and hope that, if the politicians do not act as promised, the Court will act to bring an end to this shameful practice.

A judicial review and Human Rights Act claim has been issued by a number of women who were (and in some cases, remain) detained at Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre. Two of those women were detained along with their young children.

Liberty has long campaigned for an end to the administrative detention of children. On average, over 1,000 children a year are detained in the UK by virtue of their immigration status. All the evidence shows that the impact of immigration detention on a child is profound and long-lasting. These children are already

vulnerable by virtue of their immigration status and often their life experiences. Detention can lead to depression, anxiety, sleep problems and eating problems. Not to mention a lack of access to consistent education and healthcare provision and the wider consequences of suddenly being removed from their school, their friends and their community.

Home Office ministers have repeatedly stated publicly that children should only be detained in exceptional circumstances and very close to their removal from the country. But evidence from the experts suggests that this is not happening. Families are often detained for lengthy periods of time, only to be released into the community again, raising the question as to why their detention was deemed necessary in the first place.

Liberty has teamed up to make this intervention with Bail for Immigration Detainees and we are hopeful that the case will add weight to the new political momentum on this vital issue.

On election day hundreds of people were left queuing outside polling stations across England, meaning that many potential voters were disenfranchised. Liberty is calling for people prevented from exercising their fundamental right to vote to contact us with a view to further action.

Article 3 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights requires that elections take place “under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.”

We welcomed the Electoral Commission investigation and report on the shameful scenes on election day, in particular the suggestion that the law should be clarified to make clear that people queuing at 10pm can still vote. But this could have been achieved by applying human rights principles and common sense.

Liberty will use all legal and campaigning means to ensure that this disgrace is never repeated. If you feel you were denied your right to vote, please help us by sharing your experiences and completing the questionnaire available to download on our website www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk

Why Liberty is intervening in John Gaunt’s case against Ofcom

Detention of children in immigration centres

Liberty investigates voting chaos

Yarl’s Wood Immigration Detention Centre

SE

CR

ETL

ON

DO

N12

3, 2

010

OLI

vE

R W

HIT

E,

2005


Time to repeal control orders

Sadly, may’s Queen’s Speech included no mention of control orders, the previous Government’s unsafe and unfair alternative to charge and trial for terror suspects.

Yet in 2010 control orders are looking more and more like a relic from times past. Now there’s a chance to end this policy – neither of the coalition partners have voted in favour of the orders for three years.

Control orders in brief Control orders began as a response to a High Court judgment which ruled unlawful the practice of holding terror suspects in Belmarsh prison for indefinite periods and with no trial.

Like extended pre-charge detention, control orders are a form of punishment without trial. They grossly undermine British traditions of fair trial and the presumption of innocence. Such counter-productive measures stir up resentment and fear among communities and fail to keep us safe from the real threat of terrorism.

In fact control orders allow suspects to live at home in the community, broadly free to come and go. A number of so-called “controlees” have disappeared, and plastic tags didn’t stop one former controlee from turning up at large public meetings attended by Cabinet ministers.

On the other hand the restrictions under an order are broad and indefinite. The control order regime has been chipped away at by successive legal judgments over the last few years, but the lengthy daily curfew, electronic tag, ban on communication equipment in the home and constant monitoring from the police are powerful cruelties for people who may have faced no charge.

Without the chance to defend themselves in the courts and test the evidence against them, controlees live in a state of limbo between suspicion and proof. Needless to say this regime affects not only the suspect, but their families too.

What you can domany of you have already written to your mP asking them to vote against control orders. But with a new government in place this is the perfect opportunity to do it again, no matter what party your mP belongs to.

This coalition Government has bound itself together with the language of fundamental rights and freedoms. Let’s ask them to show us how far their commitment to human rights goes.

• Please write to your mP and ask them to take this opportunity to end control orders. You can do so by visiting www.unsafeunfair.org.uk or by writing to your mP at the House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA

• Our End Control Orders petition is nearly at the 3,000 mark – help us reach it by signing up online at www.unsafeunfair.org.uk or by writing to us at 21 Tabard Street, London, SE1 4LA

Campaign news

NEW Liberty Guide to Campaigning Life, liberty, free speech, fair trials, personal privacy, no torture. Whatever the issue use our updated campaign guide to take action and make your voice heard.

Our members play a vital lobbying role. From outlawing forced labour to preventing the extension of pre-charge detention, your campaigning really does make a difference.

With political threats to the Human Rights Act surviving the new coalition, control orders and a lengthy pre-charge detention limit of 28 days we need you to act now. You should have already received your campaign guide in the post, please contact us for extra copies on 020 7403 3888 or [email protected]

Asylum election pledge Thanks to your lobbying over 1,000 parliamentary candidates signed up to our election pledge to reject racism and xenophobia and remember the importance of the right to asylum.

We worked with the Refugee Council and the Scottish Refugee Council to ensure that this election campaign remained respectful of asylum seekers and our responsibility to those in genuine fear of persecution.

Did your mP sign? Find out at www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk. 218 mPs in Parliament signed the pledge in the run-up to the election. Look out for any votes or statements that your mP makes that run counter to the pledge and let us know – help us hold them to their promise.

Campaigns Assistant Ellen Berry updates on our work and how you can get involved

stop control orders now


Parliament watch

The 2010 Queen’s speech, with its language of freedom and liberty was music to the ears of many. Its promise “to restore freedoms and civil liberties” represents a significant

break from the past. The speeches of recent memory have struck a very different tone – introducing offence after offence, even greater police powers and attacking hard won rights and freedoms. Liberty has campaigned long and hard for many of the policy commitments announced by the coalition and we will now be working to hold the new Government to its word.

Particularly welcome is the Identity Documents Bill which will repeal the ill-fated ID card scheme and the National Identity Database. This long-awaited measure is hugely important. The ID card scheme was poised to take us into uncharted territory – allowing unprecedented amounts of personal information to be stored, sifted and accessed – realigning the relationship between the individual and the state. However, the repeal of ID cards is intended only to apply for British citizens and not foreign nationals. While the requirement to hold a visa to work and study in the UK is an accepted part of immigration control, requiring foreigners but not British nationals to have compulsory ID cards is divisive and objectionable. We will be calling on the Government to scrap ID cards for everyone in the UK.

We are also very pleased to see the introduction of a Freedom (Great Repeal) Bill to restore freedoms and civil liberties and repeal unnecessary laws. We have campaigned long and hard for many of the proposals promised by this Bill. These include amending the law on DNA retention; protecting the right to trial by jury; reviewing libel laws to protect free speech; restoring rights to non-violent protest; safeguarding against the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation; regulating CCTv; and ending the storage of internet and email records without good reason. We also expect the Bill will open up other opportunities to roll back some of the worst erosions of rights and freedoms. Not least the unsafe and unfair control order regime; stop and search powers under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and the regulation of surveillance powers.

Less welcome is the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill which proposes to make the police service more accountable to local people by directly electing those who exercise oversight. We have previously voiced our concerns about the over-politicisation of the police force. Local scrutiny of budgets and other administrative matters is one thing but any proposals for directly electing those with control over operational matters would

be of huge concern. Party politics should never be a part of policing and police forces must retain operational independence.

We also have concerns about the proposed creation of a dedicated Border Police Force and the signal this sends that immigration is criminally suspicious per se. The Bill is also likely to contain proposals to give police “the powers they need to tackle anti-social behaviour”. With already innumerable and over-broad powers available in respect of anti-social behaviour we will be questioning the need for further powers.

We will be closely scrutinising the proposed Terrorist Asset Freezing Bill. Earlier this year the then Government rushed through legislation in just two days validating terrorist asset freezing orders which the Supreme Court had struck down. These orders deprive suspects of their means of support. We are pleased that

appropriate time will now be given to Parliament to properly debate these highly intrusive powers and we will be pressing to ensure appropriate safeguards are put in place.

The coalition’s Programme for Government published shortly before the Queen’s Speech also included a number of proposals that are not part of the forthcoming legislative programme. We were thrilled to see the commitment to end the detention of children for immigration purposes, and we will be calling on the Government to urgently implement this important policy. We are also concerned that proposals to scrap the Contact Point database (which will hold details of every child in the UK) and to outlaw the fingerprinting of children at school without parental consent, have not been included in the legislative programme.

One of our major priorities is the repeal of control orders and we will continue to push for a full and public independent inquiry into the UK’s role in the ‘War on Terror’. Early public statements on the latter have been promising.

It’s going to be another busy year for Liberty’s policy team. There are many opportunities for Liberty to achieve what we have long been campaigning for and we hope you will continue to help us with this important task.

Policy Officer Anita Coles looks at the new Government’s proposals

Queen’s speech 2010

“Party politics should never be a part of policing”


Cover story

A new dawn...

Liberty’s Policy Director Bella Sankey on conflicting signals

from the coalition

The ‘new politics’ of an historic Government has already ushered in some huge victories for rights and freedoms in the UK. For this the new coalition must be congratulated.

But what of the fate of the Human Rights Act? Well confirming worst fears and remaining true to earlier public statements, the Conservative Party manifesto included a pledge to scrap the HRA if elected. This promise was accompanied by a commitment to replace the Act with a “UK Bill of Rights” – content undefined. The

Liberal Democrat manifesto was similarly unequivocal but promised something completely different. If elected, they would “ensure that everyone has the same protections under the law by protecting the Human Rights Act”.

So how have these conflicting promises been reconciled?

“How have these conflicting promises been reconciled?”

but is the Human Rights Act safe?


First, after days of closely guarded coalition talks it looked at first as though the issue was going to be airbrushed away. There was no mention of the HRA in the initial coalition agreement – a gaping omission from a document that included many important commitments on human rights. Indeed we knew early on that the coalition had found (welcome) agreement on a whole host of issues pledging to scrap ID cards, end the immigration detention of children, restore the right to non-violent protest, create a fairer and more proportionate DNA database and more. However vague some of these promises, in these and other areas we can be certain that some level of early agreement was found. This was either by way of compromise or because one or other of the new coalition partners made the issue a non-negotiable.

Not so for the HRA. The future of our modern-day Bill of

Rights could apparently not be compromised away. This is, of course, as it should be and not necessarily surprising. Repeal or early amendment of the Act would surely have been a strange and paradoxical move for a coalition that has so far bound itself together with the language of civil liberties. However while the Act may have earned a temporary reprieve the HRA’s absence from the initial agreement was an early sign that it had not been made a non-negotiable in the coalition discussions.

Some reassurance about the temporary safety of the Act came with the Cabinet announcements. The newly appointed Conservative Lord Chancellor, Ken Clarke, was an early critic of Conservative plans to rip up the Act. Before being brought back into the shadow Cabinet he put paid to the debate on a ‘British Bill of Rights’, describing it as ‘xenophobic and legal nonsense’. For his part, the new Deputy Prime minister, Nick Clegg, has been passionate in his defence of the Act, as have his colleagues.

Nevertheless politics, we are told, is the art of compromise. And this was certainly the fear of a number of delegates at the Liberal Democrat Special Conference in Birmingham on 16 may. The Conference motion to back the coalition deal was amended – with overwhelming support – to call on Liberal Democrat ministers and mPs to ‘protect the HRA’ and ‘oppose moves by any party or individual to towards repeal of this Act’. So far so good.

But then came the earliest and hardest of tests. Before the ink had dried on the first coalition agreement, the Special Immigration Appeals Tribunal handed down a ruling which said that two Pakistani terror suspects could not be deported because deportation would put them at real risk of being subjected to torture or inhuman and degrading treatment – and would put the Government in breach of Article 3 of the HRA. As the judgment broke, the all-too-familiar demands for the Human Rights Act to be ripped up were unleashed. Promisingly, these calls were not met with sympathy at the Home Department. In a break with the recent past, Government ministers did not take to the airwaves to accuse irresponsible judges of undermining national security or to complain that their hands were tied by ‘unbalanced’ human rights legislation.

However on the afternoon that the SIAC judgment was handed down the BBC reported that the Government was about to announce a Commission to look into the workings of the HRA. Rumour, speculation and spin soon hardened into fact when the coalition’s Programme for Government was published the following day. The fudge?

Perhaps as intended, this commitment can be interpreted in two ways. It is either a convenient mechanism for kicking the issue into the long grass or the beginning of attempts to dismantle or dilute the HRA. The creation of a Commission can certainly tape over this particular fault line for the time being but not forever. While the apparent commitment to obligations under the ECHR is better than the alternative it is not as good as a firm commitment to the HRA and its unique protections. Any new ‘Bill of Rights’ will have to ensure nothing less to command Liberal Democrat support. Yet the HRA benchmark will not wash with some Conservatives – dilution of the HRA has, for several years, been the driving force behind Tory attacks on the Act. If one thing is certain – this issue is explosive and has the potential to bring the coalition down.

So is the HRA safe for the next five years? No. To assume that would surely be irresponsible. After all, governments – whatever their shade – should never be the trusted custodians of hard won rights. And despite the new language of the Queen's Speech, now is certainly not the time to be complacent. We have been here before in the not too distant past. Cast your mind back to the last new dawn: an ambitious and human rights friendly Government...

We will establish a Commission to investigate the creation of a British Bill of Rights that incorporates and builds on all our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, ensures that these rights continue to be enshrined in British law, and protects and extends British liberties. We will seek to promote a better understanding of the true scope of these obligations and liberties.

“The all-too-familiar demands for the Human Rights Act to be ripped up were unleashed”

Prime Minister David Cameron and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg

THE

PR

ImE

mIN

ISTE

R’S

OFF

ICE

, 20

10


Feature

Every Single WomanCaroline Chandler introduces Asylum Aid’s campaign highlighting the experiences of women in the asylum system

Rani fled Sri Lanka after her husband was murdered and she was raped by soldiers. At her asylum interview in the UK, she was provided with a female interviewer according

to UK Border Agency (UKBA) guidelines. Her translator, however, was a man. She found it difficult to talk frankly about what had happened to her: “Because it was a man I felt ashamed. If it was a woman, I would have said more.”

Forms of persecution occurring more frequently against women, such as rape, domestic violence, honour crimes and female genital mutilation may be carried out in the heart of families and communities; such extremely sensitive issues are difficult to discuss with strangers.

The last decade has seen a growing understanding of the psychological consequences of crimes like rape and domestic violence. We understand that victims may suffer from feelings of shame or guilt and often need time to build trust before disclosing such personal information. When reporting such crimes to the police in the UK, women are generally given female police officers as a matter of course. In courtrooms they may be allowed to testify using screens or video-link to provide their ‘best evidence’. There have been similar advances within the prison system. For example, UK prison policy requires a minimum of 60% female staff in women’s prisons because “women who have been abused may feel safer in a predominantly female environment.” No such policies exist for women’s detention centres.

Having been raped by rebels in Cameroon, Cecilia fled to the

UK, claimed asylum and was later detained in an immigration removal centre. male officers would come into her room without warning and go through all of her belongings, including her underwear. This lack of warning was very distressing, as it brought back memories of the trauma she had previously experienced. In prison in the UK, her experience was that searches are carried out by a female officer and prisoners are given advance warning. Cecilia’s verdict is telling: “Rather than going to a detention centre, it’s better for me to be in prison for the rest of my life.”

Rani and Cecilia both feature in Every Single Woman, a campaign film and report released late last year under the Charter of Rights of Women Seeking Asylum to highlight the specific problems experienced by women going through the asylum system. Since June 2008 the Charter has been endorsed by over 200 organisations, including Liberty, Amnesty International and Oxfam. It includes 24 recommendations to the UK Border Agency in working towards a gender-sensitive asylum system. In short, this means understanding the special and gender specific issues which cause some women to seek asylum and their specific needs. It means changing the ‘culture of disbelief’ which pervades the UKBA when handling asylum claims by women.

The Every Single Woman campaign develops this idea by focusing on the disparity in the treatment of women who are seeking asylum compared with women settled in the UK. The campaign states that a change of culture designed to produce a genuinely gender sensitive asylum system is urgently needed to ensure that women seeking asylum receive a comparable standard of treatment to women in similar situations who are settled here already.

Since the introduction of the Charter, there have been slight improvements in the asylum system. Limited childcare has been provided in Cardiff, Glasgow and Leeds – although interviews for parents are not necessarily scheduled for days when childcare is available. Soon after the Every Single Woman campaign was launched, the UK Border Agency responded to the first recommendation put forward in the Charter by appointing a Gender Champion from their senior management team. These may only be small glimmers of change, but they are definite steps in the right direction.

For more information, and to endorse the Charter, please visit www.asylumaid.org.uk/charter

RANI, PHOTO BY CHANGING IDEAS


Director of Development Lee Rodwell explains the why, when and how of our move to Westminster

Liberty’s new home your questions answered

Feature

Since we announced Liberty’s plans to move to a new building, we have been overwhelmed by the generous response from Liberty members. Your messages of

support have been just as inspiring as the £50,000 you’ve already given towards the appeal. Thank you for such marvellous encouragement.

many of you have asked to know more about our plans and the reasoning behind them, so we’re sharing some of our answers here, along with a couple of pictures of the building itself.

So, what’s wrong with Liberty’s current office?Well, it’s certainly cramped and uncomfortable, has only one meeting room and little access to fresh air or daylight. But our plans to relocate are not so much about what’s wrong with our current building, which is plenty, but about how much more we can do in a new building.

As a Liberty member, we hope you’re proud of the powerful campaigns you have seen us run on a wide range of issues. In a new building, we will be even more effective, with the capacity to take on lots more volunteers, a perfect new location, and a space we can call our own long into the future.

But why do you need to move to Westminster?As you know, a key part of our work consists of influencing politicians – there’s no doubt that being closer to Parliament will help us to do so. And, of course, it is not just the Houses of Parliament that we will be closer to, but also various ministries, media offices and studios, Scotland Yard and the new Supreme Court.

For all of these reasons, Westminster is clearly the ideal home for us – a practical and symbolic location for the conscience of a nation. What we didn’t expect was being able to afford anywhere there! However, after many months of searching, we were both surprised and delighted to have found a building that is perfect for Liberty and considerably cheaper than anticipated.

Why do you need to move now?The need for Liberty to relocate has been apparent for many years, but we have been fortunate that the wider economic climate makes moving now considerably more affordable than it has been for many years. On the back of much campaigning success, but with much more still to be done in uncertain economic and political times, now is the perfect time to move.

But if I make a donation now, won’t you just ask me again in a few years time?No – the last time Liberty moved offices was 1981. This is truly a once-in-a-generation appeal. Our planned new offices represent a

new home that Liberty can call its own for decades to come. We even have some outside space (with existing planning permission) to extend into if the organisation grows in future years.

Why have you set a target of £500,000?We recognise that our target of raising half a million pounds from Liberty members seems ambitious. The good news is that, through the sale of Liberty’s current premises and the generous support of trusts and foundations in particular, we already have around £2m received or pledged towards the relocation project. Raising a final £500,000 will ensure we can move into the planned new building in the summer of 2011.

Why am I being asked to donate to the Civil Liberties Trust?As many of you are already aware, Liberty’s campaigning work is deemed to be too political to be classed as charitable. Like many similar organisations, our work is therefore supported by a charitable sister organisation – the Civil Liberties Trust – which can claim some of the benefits of charitable status, such as Gift Aid. The Trust supports Liberty’s work in numerous ways, but perhaps the most important is to be owner and custodian of Liberty’s headquarters. It is therefore the Trust that is raising money towards the new building which Liberty will occupy.

How can I donate to the appeal?There are numerous ways to support the appeal – by cheque, postal order or CAF voucher; by credit card donation online at www.justgiving.com/FutureOfLiberty; or by setting up a three-year Direct Debit to the appeal using the form enclosed with this newsletter.

If you’d like more information about the move, please contact our membership office on 020 7378 3663

What is Erasing David about?Erasing David is a feature documentary. I wanted to find out how much of our personal information is floating around in government and corporate databases. To find out, I went on the run for a month and set two of the world’s top private investigators the task of tracking me down, using only publicly available data.

What inspired you to make the film?When my daughter was a small baby, a letter arrived from the UK government. It was an apology – they had lost her and my data on a CD (it included her name, date of birth, address and my bank details). It really spooked me and I started noticing the growing number of press stories about the database state. I read some research from the London School of Economics that said that the UK is one of the three most intrusive surveillance states in the world. That’s when I decided it was time to make the film. I guess I saw it as an adventure, which I hoped would make a point. What I didn’t realise was that the experience would be profoundly unsettling and transformative.

What did you learn from your experiment?Three things: 1. If you’re going to challenge people to a contest, don’t pick the type who will never give up, no matter what. 2. There is way more data out there about all of us than most of us imagine. 3. The politicians don’t seem capable of protecting us: if we don’t start to object to this on a personal level by pushing back against organisations wanting to profile us, we could be heading

for increasingly totalitarian treatment by governments and corporations.

The long-term effect of making the film has been the most profound. I routinely question exchanges of data and information that most people don’t notice. This can be a pain – but it is also really liberating. And of course now I shred. A lot.

Why did you decide to place yourself at the centre of the story?I love “talking head” documentaries, and we could have treated the issues that way. But I wanted people who are really not worried about the database state to enjoy the film and for it to draw them into the issues. To make that work, we needed a strong personal story that highlights the boundary between individual and state. I was already into the debate, I had a young family, I was cheap to hire: what can I say, I gave myself the job… Is that nepotism? There is definitely something paradoxical in the film. I’m trying to hide – to erase myself – whilst simultaneously filming myself and then screening the results. I like the paradox though. I think it reflects what we all feel – that it would be great to be recognised, but also great not to be…

What are you hoping viewers will take away from your film?I mainly want people to find the film entertaining, but if people who watch the film react against just one attempt by a company, or a government to capture or profile theirs or their family’s data, I’d be a happy filmmaker. We’re developing a supporting website, www.erasingdavid.com, where people can learn more about protecting their privacy.


Interview

If you’d like to arrange a screening of the film in your local area to raise awareness of personal privacy, visit Good Screenings at www.goodscreenings.org for hire fees and tips on running your event.

Some big advances in privacy protection have been promised by the new Government. But as the feature documentary Erasing David shows, there’s still plenty to be concerned about. We spoke to the film’s director and star, David Bond

Erasing David

Membership news


If you’re interested in fundraising for Liberty please contact Liberty's membership team by emailing [email protected] or calling 020 7378 7663If you’d like to contribute towards our fund to move to a new building, please visit www.justgiving.com/futureofliberty to make a donation.

You can find out more about these rights and others at www.love.commonvalues.org.uk and read excerpts from two of the works below.

Article 12: You Have The Right To Marry And Raise A Familyby Paul Burston

Shortly after our wedding I published a novel about a gay man planning his own civil partnership. On the day of publication I was interviewed by a radio presenter who put it to me that gay marriage was an attack on the family. I asked him to define family and he floundered. ‘maybe you should ask my mother?’ I said. ‘Or my step father? Or my sisters? Or my nephew and niece? Or if you call long distance you could talk to my new mother and father-in-law in Rio. They’re all family, and they didn’t see our wedding as an attack on them.’

Article 7: No Punishment Without Law: if accused of a crime, you have the right to hear the evidence against you, in a court of law.by Ali Smith

What can I do you for, madam? he said.

Please help me, miss Otis said.

That’s what we’re here for, madam, he said.

I call upon the law and I fall upon the law, miss Otis said.

Yes, but which law exactly, madam? the constable said. We have so many, and so many new ones. The forty five criminal justice laws which were created, for instance, while mr Blair was Prime minister alone – which, added together, by the way, come to a total larger than all the criminal justice laws passed by all the governments of Britain in the whole previous century – have created more than three thousand new ways to be committing a criminal offence, which makes it very dizzying for us, madam, as you might imagine, and we’d appreciate you taking that into account.

Yes, of course, miss Otis said. But it’s urgent. There’s a mob

after me. They want to hang me.

The police constable went through the back to fetch a form.

In April Liberty ran a joint event with the Southbank Centre celebrating our Common values campaign and using new writing to illuminate the individual rights in the Human Rights Act. Some of the country’s top authors performed their newly commissioned works on specific rights in the Act.

Ali Smith, Hisham matar, Kamila Shamsie, Lemn Sissay, Jeanette Winterson, Brian Chikwava, Suheir Hammad, Bernardine Evaristo, Robin Yassin-Kassab, Paul Burston, Laura Dockrill and campaigner Zackie Achmat brought to life rights including fair trial, the prohibition of slavery and torture and the right to marry.

Liberty supporters, staff and volunteers have raised a fantastic £4,000 over the last few months at some gruelling and some less-than-gruelling fundraising events.

Kate Watkin and Lee Rodwell ran 26.2 miles around the streets of London on Sunday 25 April. Both smashed their personal fundraising targets, and just to make it extra challenging, Lee ran the Brighton marathon on Sunday 18 April as well. In may an intrepid team of Liberty fundraisers took to the high seas (well, the Royal victoria Dock Watersports Centre) to compete in a Dragon Boat Race, and another took to the streets for the London Legal Walk 2010, a 10km guided tour of some of London’s legal landmarks.

Well done and a huge ‘thank you’ to everyone involved!

Paul Burston reads his workWriters give a voice to

the Human Rights Act

Fundraising events raise over £4,000 for Liberty’s new home

✁

MeMBerShIP FOrM

YOUR DETAILS

Name

Address

Postcode

Phone

Email

I WOULD LIKE TO:

Join Liberty as a new member

renew/Upgrade my membership

Make a donation

ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP FEES

(CHEQUES / CREDIT CARD)

£__________ please indicate (minimum £30)

£120 Friend of Liberty

£60 Lawyer for Liberty

£12 Unwaged

Or tick here to be sent a direct debit

mandate for monthly giving.

Please either send a cheque or card

payment for the total Annual membership

PAYMENT

Please make all cheques payable to ‘Liberty’

or enter your credit cards details below

I enclose a cheque for (insert amount)

£

Please debit my Visa/Mastercard

Card no.

_ _ _ _ /_ _ _ _ /_ _ _ _ / _ _ _ _ / _ _ _ _

expiry date _ _ / _ _

Signature

Today's date

Please return this form and payment to:

Liberty, 21 Tabard Street, London SE1 4LA

or you can join, update or amend your

membership online at www.liberty-human-

rights.org.uk

All members of Liberty (the National

Council for Civil Liberties) are members of

our unincorporated association. Fees and

donations are passed to our non-profit making

company which undertakes campaigning work.

(Reg. No. 3260840)

30 second interviewPlease tell us your name and what you do at Liberty. my name’s Ed Gillett: I’m Liberty’s receptionist, so I deal with all of our incoming phone calls, post and visitors. I also help provide administrative support to everyone else in the office, as part of the Operations department, and look after our team of admin volunteers.

Why did you want to come and work at Liberty?I actually started off here as a volunteer myself: I’d always been hugely impressed by Liberty spokespeople on the news, became really interested in Liberty as a result, and eventually decided that I wanted to get involved.

What does your typical day involve?There’s always plenty of people calling our switchboard, so I’ll usually be busy directing callers to the relevant person, or answering general queries about what we do. The rest of my time is pretty varied: at any one moment I might be fixing a broken printer, helping with a job recruitment, organising stuff for our AGm, or trying to do all three at once!

What is the best thing about your job?The feeling that you’ve contributed to one of the most important human rights organisations in the UK. Seeing the results of Liberty’s work, whether it’s victory in a court case, a public campaign changing people’s perceptions of a particular issue, or even just someone who’s been given really helpful advice about human rights law, makes me incredibly proud.

And the worst?We get a lot of calls from people who are desperate for help, and sometimes there’s just nothing we can do. It can be pretty heartbreaking having to explain that we don’t have the resources to offer everyone substantive legal assistance.

What do you do when you're not at work? I’m a massive music geek, so my time is generally spent at gigs, digging around in record shops, listening to music, that sort of thing! I’m also part of a small independent arts group in South London who put on exhibitions, publish books, loads of interesting stuff like that.

Thank you for supporting Liberty, it is our members that make all of our work possible. There’s more you

can do to help us:

• Tell your friends! It sounds simple, but spreading the word about our

work is a big help. Lend them your copy of this newsletter, or send

them a link to our website www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk

• make a donation by visiting our website, filling in the form on the left

or by calling us on 020 7403 3888. Whatever you can give will help us

fight the erosion of civil liberties in the UK.