Liberty Summer 2010 v3

8/8/2019 Liberty Summer 2010 v3

1/12

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 JacksonDesign Sparkloop (www.sparkloop.com)

Print Reex Litho Ltd

Liberty is afliated to the Federation

Internationale des ligues des Droits de

lHomme (FIDH)

In thIs Issue:

news In BrIef

Liberty supports gay couplein B&B discrimination case;Investigating election daychaos; Child immigrationdetention case; Torture andsecrecy; Why Liberty isintervening in John Gaunts

case against Ofcom 2-3

CampaIgn news

Act now to end control orderswith our new Liberty Guide toCampaigning 4

parlIament watCh

Policy Ofcer Anita Coles takes

a closer look at the proposals in

the Queens Speech 5

every sIngle woman

Introducing Asylum Aids

campaign to highlight the

experiences of women inthe asylum system 8

lIBertys new home

Director of Development LeeRodwell answers your questions 9

IntervIew

Erasing David director David

Bond talks to us about his

feature documentary 10

memBershIp news

News, notices and ways to get

involved with our campaigns 11

30 seCond IntervIew

Libertys receptionist answers

our questions 12a b i hri ac ?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 CleggTHEPRImEmINISTERSOFFICE,2010


2/12

2 libSummer 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 rst 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 instinctivelyprefer 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 ner virtues. But a retreat from human rights towards

citizens privileges is the road back to Guantnamo 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 cant do it without you. Please continue your vital support

for our campaigns, and together well continue to ght for our

rights and freedoms and hold every new government to account.

Shami Chakrabarti

Director of Liberty

ichael Black and John organ 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 arch. Despite protestations from r 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 r Black and r organ 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 ay Liberty welcomed the new coalition Governments

announcement of an inquiry into alleged British complicity in

torture, just weeks after the Court of Appeal again rejected the

former Governments attempt to subvert open justice in the

case of Binyam ohamed.

Binyam ohamed 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 thecommon law, and at the start of ay 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 classied 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 establishments knowledge of interrogations by

third parties and any ndings must be presented openly and

transparently.


3/12

libSummer 20103

Some members may have been surprised to hear last year that

Liberty is intervening in support of shock jock Jon Gaunts case

against Ofcom. After all he once called Libertys 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 Gaunts 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 Councils policy ofbanning smokers from becoming foster parents, r 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. Ofcoms subsequent nding that r

Gaunt had breached the Broadcasting Code effectively vindicated

TalkSports decision.

There are of course limits on free speech and it would be

nonsensical to protect absolutely one persons 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. Ofcoms regulatory duty was to decide

whether the TalkSport interview constituted a failure to protect the

public from material that is harmful. In the circumstances, Ofcomsnding 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 Governments 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 Yarls 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 Ofce 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 rst 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 peopleprevented 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 claried 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 Gaunts caseagainst Ofcom

Detention of children inimmigration centres

Liberty investigatesvoting chaos

Yarls Wood Immigration Detention Centre

SECRETLONDON123,2010

OLIv

ERWHITE,2005


4/12

4 libSummer 2010

Time to repeal control orders

Sadly, ays Queens Speech included no mention of control

orders, the previous Governments 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 theres 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 judgmentwhich ruled unlawful the practice of holding terror suspects in

Belmarsh prison for indenite 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 didnt 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 indenite. 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 doany of you have already written to your P 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 P belongs to.

This coalition Government has bound itself together with the

language of fundamental rights and freedoms. Lets ask them to

show us how far their commitment to human rights goes.

Please write to your P 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

P 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 CampaigningLife, 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 pledgeThanks 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 P sign? Find out at www.liberty-human-rights.

org.uk. 218 Ps in Parliament signed the pledge in the run-

up to the election. Look out for any votes or statements thatyour P 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

s c


5/12

libSummer 20105

Parliament watch

The 2010 Queens 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 signicant

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. TheID 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 CCT; 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 freezingorders 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 coalitions Programme for Government published shortly

before the Queens 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

ngerprinting 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 UKs role in the War on Terror. Early public statements on the

latter have been promising.Its going to be another busy year for Libertys 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 Ofcer Anita Coles looks at the

new Governments proposals

Qsc2010

Party politics should never

be a part of policing


6/12

6 libSummer 2010

Cover story

A newdawn...

Libertys Policy

Director Bella Sankey

on conicting signalsfrom the coalition T

he 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 conrmingworst fears and remaining true to earlier public statements, the

Conservative Party anifesto 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 undened. The

Liberal Democrat anifesto was similarly unequivocal but promisedsomething 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 conicting promises been reconciled?

How have these conicting

promises been reconciled?

but is the HumanRights Act safe?


7/12

libSummer 20107

First, after days of closely guarded coalition talks it looked at

rst 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 thatthe 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 HRAs absence fromthe 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 inister, 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 ay.

The Conference motion to back the coalition deal was amended

with overwhelming support to call on Liberal Democrat inisters

and Ps 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 rst 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 therecent 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

coalitions 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 rm 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 ve 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 unleashedPrime Minister David

Cameron and Deputy

Prime Minister Nick Clegg

THEPRImEmINIST

ERSOFFICE,2010


8/12

8 libSummer 2010

Feature

Every SingleWomanCaroline Chandler introduces Asylum Aids

campaign highlighting the experiences of

women in the asylum system

Rani ed 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 difcult 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 aredifcult 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 ofcers 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 womens prisons because women who

have been abused may feel safer in a predominantly femaleenvironment. No such policies exist for womens detention

centres.

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

UK, claimed asylum and was later detained in an immigration

removal centre. ale ofcers 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 ofcer and prisoners are

given advance warning. Cecilias verdict is telling: Rather than

going to a detention centre, its better for me to be in prison for

the rest of my life.

Rani and Cecilia both feature in Every Single Woman, a

campaign lm and report released late last year under the Charter

of Rights of Women Seeking Asylum to highlight the specicproblems 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 specic

issues which cause some women to seek asylum and their

specic 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 neededto 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 rst

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 denite

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


9/12

libSummer 20109

Director of Development Lee Rodwell

explains the why, when and how of our

move to Westminster

Libertys new home

your questions answered

Feature

Since we announced Libertys 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 youve

already given towards the appeal. Thank you for such

marvellous encouragement.

any of you have asked to know more about our plans and

the reasoning behind them, so were sharing some of our answers

here, along with a couple of pictures of the building itself.

So, whats wrong with Libertys current ofce?Well, its 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 whats 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 youre proud of the powerful

campaigns you have seen us run on a wide range of issues. In anew 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 inuencing

politicians theres 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 inistries,

media ofces 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 anation. What we didnt 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, wont you just ask meagain in a few years time?No the last time Liberty moved ofces was 1981. This is truly a

once-in-a-generation appeal. Our planned new ofces 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 Libertys current premises and the generous support oftrusts and foundations in particular, we already have around 2m

received or pledged towards the relocation project. Raising a nal

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 LibertiesTrust?

As many of you are already aware, Libertys 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 benets of charitable status, such as Gift Aid.

The Trust supports Libertys work in numerous ways, but perhaps

the most important is to be owner and custodian of Libertys

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 youd like more information about the move, please contact

our embership ofce on 020 7378 3663


10/12

What isErasing Davidabout?Erasing David is a feature documentary. I wanted to nd out how

much of our personal information is oating around in government

and corporate databases. To nd out, I went on the run for a

month and set two of the worlds top private investigators the task

of tracking me down, using only publicly available data.

What inspired you to make the lm?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. Thats when I decided it was time to make the lm. I

guess I saw it as an adventure, which I hoped would make a point.

What I didnt realise was that the experience would be profoundly

unsettling and transformative.

What did you learn from your experiment?Three things:

1. If youre going to challenge people to a contest, dont 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 dont seem capable of protecting us: if wedont start to object to this on a personal level by pushing back

against organisations wanting to prole us, we could be heading

for increasingly totalitarian treatment by governments and

corporations.

The long-term effect of making the lm has been the most

profound. I routinely question exchanges of data and information

that most people dont 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 ofthe story?

I love talking head documentaries, and we could have treatedthe issues that way. But I wanted people who are really not worried

about the database state to enjoy the lm 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 denitely something paradoxical in the lm. Im trying to

hide to erase myself whilst simultaneously lming myself and

then screening the results. I like the paradox though. I think it

reects 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 fromyour lm?I mainly want people to nd the lm entertaining, but if people who

watch the lm react against just one attempt by a company, or a

government to capture or prole theirs or their familys data, Id be

a happy lmmaker. Were developing a supporting website, www.

erasingdavid.com, where people can learn more about protecting

their privacy.

10 libSummer 2010

Interview

If youd like to arrange a screening of the lm in your local area

to raise awareness of personal privacy, visit Good Screenings atwww.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 documentaryErasing

Davidshows, theres still plenty to be

concerned about. We spoke to the lms

director and star, David Bond

Erasing David


11/12

Membership news

libSummer 201011

If youre interested in fundraising for Liberty please contact Liberty's embership team by emailing membership@liberty-human-rights.

org.uk or calling 020 7378 7663

If youd like to contribute towards our fund to move to a new building, please visit www.justgiving.com/futureoiberty to make a donation.

You can nd 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 AndRaise A Family

by 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 dene

family and he oundered. aybe 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. Theyre all family, and they

didnt see our wedding as an attack on them.

Article 7:No Punishment Without Law: ifaccused of a crime, you have the rightto hear the evidence against you, in acourt of law.by Ali Smith

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

Please help me, iss Otis said.

Thats what were here for, adam, he said.

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

Yes, but which law exactly, adam? the constable said. We

have so many, and so many new ones. The forty ve criminal

justice laws which were created, for instance, while r Blair

was Prime inister 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, adam, as you might imagine, and wed appreciate you

taking that into account.

Yes, of course, iss Otis said. But its urgent. Theres 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 alues campaign and using new writing

to illuminate the individual rights in the Human Rights Act. Some

of the countrys top authors performed their newly commissioned

works on specic rights in the Act.

Ali Smith, Hisham atar, 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 ay an intrepid team of Liberty fundraisers

took to the high seas (well, the Royal ictoria 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 Londons legal landmarks.

Well done and a huge thank you toeveryone involved!

Paul Burston

reads his work

Writers give a voice to

the Human Rights Act

Fundraising events raiseover 4,000 for Libertysnew home


12/12

MMBSIP FOM

YOUR DETAILS

Name

Address

Postcode

Phone

Email

I WOULD LIKE TO:

Join Liberty as a new member

enew/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.

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

xpiry 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 anddonations are passed to our non-prot making

company which undertakes campaigning work.

(Reg. No. 3260840)

30secondinterview

Please tell us your name and whatyou do at Liberty.y names Ed Gillett: Im Libertys

receptionist, so I deal with all of our

incoming phone calls, post and visitors. I

also help provide administrative support toeveryone else in the ofce, as part of the

Operations department, and look after our

team of admin volunteers.

Why did you want to come andwork at Liberty?I actually started off here as a volunteer

myself: Id 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 dayinvolve?Theres always plenty of people calling

our switchboard, so Ill 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 xing a broken

printer, helping with a job recruitment,

organising stuff for our AG, or trying to do

all three at once!

What is the best thing about yourjob?The feeling that youve contributed to

one of the most important human rights

organisations in the UK. Seeing the results

of Libertys work, whether its victory in a

court case, a public campaign changing

peoples perceptions of a particular issue,

or even just someone whos 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 theres

just nothing we can do. It can be pretty

heartbreaking having to explain that we

dont have the resources to offer everyone

substantive legal assistance.

What do you do when you're not atwork?Im a massive music geek, so my time is

generally spent at gigs, digging around

in record shops, listening to music, that

sort of thing! Im 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. Theres 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

ake a donation by visiting our website, lling in the form on the left

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

ght the erosion of civil liberties in the UK.