informationliberation
The news you're not supposed to know...




Austrian Economics: Understand Economics, Understand the World
The Century of the Self: The Untold History of Controlling the Masses Through the Manipulation of Unconscious Desires
The Disappearing Male: From Virility to Sterility

The Obama Deception: The Mask Comes Off
Operation Gladio: The Hidden History of U.S. Sponsored False Flag Terrorism in EuropeThe New American Century: The Untold History of The Project for the New American Century
(more)
Article posted Jul 01 2010, 11:57 PM Category: Tyranny/Police State Source: Infowars Print

European Court Of Human Rights Rules Police Terror Stops Illegal

Government could revoke “stop and search” powers altogether
By Steve Watson


The European Court Of Human Rights has officially ruled police “stop and search” powers, under UK Terrorism laws, illegal for the second time, rejecting a government appeal.

Under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, police can stop and search anyone without reasonable suspicion.

The British High Court and the Court of Appeal have previously ruled that the powers are legitimate given the risk of terrorism in London.

However, the use of the powers by the police was ruled illegal by the European Court in January, a decision that paves the way for protesters, photographers and everyday citizens to fight back against such gross invasions of privacy.

The government attempted to challenge that decision, however, permission to do so has now been refused. The European Court also announced that any future appeals would not be accepted.

The court in Strasbourg referred to stop and search powers as not in “accordance with the law”, and a violation of article eight of The European Convention on Human Rights -- the right to respect for private and family life.

Article eight states that “everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life”.

Furthermore: “There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security… or the prevention of disorder or crime… or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

Judges noted that there is no grounds for considering the powers “necessary”, and that they are only “expedient”, adding that there is a “clear risk of arbitrariness in granting such broad discretion” to a police officer.

They also stated that the searching clothing and belongings interferes with the right to privacy as it involves an element of humiliation and embarrassment.

The use of the powers and their authorisation is “neither sufficiently circumscribed, nor subject to adequate legal safeguards against abuse”, according to the court.

The court also highlighted a lack of judicial oversight, stating “The absence of any obligation on the part of the officer to show a reasonable suspicion made it almost impossible to prove that the power had been improperly exercised”.

Despite these findings, the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers pledged to continue using Section 44.

The rejection of the government’s appeal of the decision (see the letter below), which was instigated in April, now paves the way for pressure to completely repeal the powers, particularly given that the new coalition government has pledged to instigate a “Great Repeal Bill” targeting unnecessary laws that constitute a threat to civil liberties.

Separate revelations earlier this month that 14 different police forces in the UK had unlawfully used stop and search powers in 40 operations dating back to 2001 also provides the perfect pretext for scrapping them altogether.



A Home Office spokesman said: “The Government has already committed to reviewing counter-terrorism legislation, which will include the operation of the Section 44 stop and search provisions.”

“We are currently giving full consideration to the judgement and its implications.” the spokesman added, referring to the European Court’s ruling.

The ruling from the Human Rights Court refers to the case of Kevin Gillan and Pennie Quinton who were detained for attending a protest outside Europe's biggest arms fair in London in September 2003.

Having finally achieved justice after more than six years of pursuing the matter, the pair were awarded €33,850 (£30,400) in costs and expenses. The full judgment is online here.

Gillan and Quinton, who like many others could have just walked away, should be commended as heroes for their efforts to defend freedom in the UK.

Anti-terror laws are intended for use on the general public, they always have been, and now we are seeing the rotten fruits of continued blind acceptance contaminate every section of society in this country.

Gillan and Quinton have paved the way for others who have been the victims of the misuse of these draconian terrorism laws to fight back and help push for a complete rejection of such abuses of power.





Latest Tyranny/Police State
- Texas SWAT Police Storm Old Man's Home, Break His Hip, Leave Him Lying In His Own Feces
- Capital Police Break Into Mans Unattended Car, Blow Up Pressure Cooker
- Cops Turn into Bullies After they're Filmed Breaking the Very Laws they are Supposed to Enforce
- Support Your Militarized "Local" Police, and Keep Them Independent of Citizen Oversight...
- Kansas City Cops Take 'Murder'n' Pride Photos
- North Carolina Police Arrest Man for Recording Before Trying to Destroy Phone
- DUI Checkpoints Just the Tip of the Iceberg, Cops Now Going Directly into Bars with Breathalyzers
- RAW: Virginia Cop Pepper-Sprays Stroke Sufferer in the Face









No Comments Posted Add Comment


Add Comment
Name
Comment

* No HTML


Verification *
Please Enter the Verification Code Seen Below
 


PLEASE NOTE
Please see our About Page, our Disclaimer, and our Comments Policy.


FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the DMCA and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.

About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy



Advanced Search
Username:

Password:

Remember Me
Forgot Password?
Register

New DEA Chief Retreats On War Against Weed, Says DEA Will No Longer Focus On Marijuana - 05/26Cops Turn into Bullies After they're Filmed Breaking the Very Laws they are Supposed to Enforce - 05/26Support Your Militarized "Local" Police, and Keep Them Independent of Citizen Oversight... - 05/26Texas SWAT Police Storm Old Man's Home, Break His Hip, Leave Him Lying In His Own Feces - 05/26Capital Police Break Into Mans Unattended Car, Blow Up Pressure Cooker - 05/26Top Bush Era CIA Official Just Confirmed the Iraq War Was Based On Lies - 05/26The Fable of the Chickens - 05/26Venezuela: World's Highest Inflation Rate - 05/26

Man Follows Speeding Cop, Finds Out He Was Speeding To Buy PeanutsMission Creeps: Homeland Security Agents Confiscate Women's Panties For 'Copyright Infringement'Cop Shoots Couple's Dog, Threatens Jail For Trying To Save Dog's LifeSWAT Team Shoots Teen Girl & Her Dog During Pot Raid On Wrong HomeDurham, NC Cop Testifies Faking 911 Calls To Enter Homes Is "Official Policy"Indiana Sheriff Says US A "War Zone" To Justify New MRAP Military VehicleTampa Cops Surveil Pot Dealer, Catch Him Selling Pot, Raid His Home & Kill Him"You Just Shot An Unarmed Man!": Witness Says Police Shot His Friend With His Hands Up
(more)

 
Top