Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org

Red Justice

Are we allowed to discuss this below when it is under judicial consideration or are we silenced by Scottish law? If we are not allowed to lets debate our views about free speech in Scotland.

A HIGH-POWERED coalition of politicians, writers and lawyers last night joined forces to warn that the courts’ treatment of human rights lawyer Aamer Anwar represented an “attack on freedom of speech”.

Iain Banks, the author, joined veteran Labour politician Tony Benn, Respect MP George Galloway, Bashir Mann, convener of the Muslim Council of Scotland and human rights lawyer Gareth Pierce, among others, to appeal to the courts to stop pursuing Mr Anwar.

Mr Anwar is facing a contempt of court charge for speaking out against a series of verdicts in September. His client, Mohammed Atif Siddique, had been jailed for eight years on terrorism offences and Mr Anwar reacted by issuing a strong press statement outside the court.

Mr Anwar claimed that the verdicts were a tragedy for justice and freedom of speech and alleged that his client had not received a fair trial.

Lord Carloway looked into Mr Anwar’s remarks and decided that the lawyer had made an “unjustified attack on almost every area of the trial process”.

The judge then passed the issue to the courts to decide whether Mr Anwar had been guilty of contempt of court.

If Mr Anwar is found to have been in contempt of court, he could be jailed - a prospect which has angered many senior politicians and lawyers.

Last night, a number of high-profile Scots came together in Mr Anwar’s defence and sent a letter to The Scotsman warning the courts could cause considerable damage to freedom of speech in Scotland if the case against Mr Anwar was pursued.

The authors of the letter stated: “The possibility that Aamer Anwar may have to face contempt charges is deeply worrying and is an unprecedented attack on freedom of speech.”

The letter writers praised Mr Anwar’s work as a human rights lawyer over the last few years and added: “If the judiciary is successful in silencing Aamer Anwar, then this will have far-reaching consequences.

“We should all be very worried if the effect of this case is to make lawyers reluctant to carry out this work for fear of the repercussions.

“We believe that the current attack on Aamer Anwar is an attack on the fundamental right of all lawyers to represent their clients.”

Last night, Mr Anwar said he could not comment while the issue was still “under judicial consideration”.

However, in a further development which will increase the pressure on the judiciary over the case, Margo MacDonald, the independent MSP, said that she wanted to raise the issue in the Scottish Parliament, probably in the form of a parliamentary motion, if she was allowed to do so.

Ms MacDonald said: “I am concerned about any restraint being put on lawyers who speak their minds, give their opinions or campaign against injustice - and Aamer Anwar does all three.

“When he spoke after the guilty verdict against Mr Siddique, he was speaking on behalf of his client and I think it might have been wise for everyone to take account of the heightened sensitivity at that time.”

_________________
Supporting independence and socialism in a nuclear free Scotland:
http://scottishsocfree.blogspot.com
http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=6732691161

Aventinian · Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 10:11 pm Post subject:

I don't see what the question you are asking has to do with the article, nor does it even make sense. There is no real dichotomy between Scots law and British law, unless you are expressly suggesting pre-1707 law, again about as easy to nail down as an uncooked egg on a wall.

Either way, this does not affect 'free speech' - there are plenty of forums for the consideration of judicial reform. Simply acting unprofessionally does nothing.
_________________
The resident pantomime villain.
'Socialists cry "Power to the people", and raise the clenched fist as they say it. We all know what they really mean—power over people, power to the State.'

Red Justice · Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 10:22 pm Post subject:

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 806

Aventinian wrote "I don't see what the question you are asking has to do with the article"

I agree that the question is pretty meaningless, and just causes confusion. However the article does raise important issues.

Aventinian continues "There is no real dichotomy between Scots law and British law, unless you are expressly suggesting pre-1707 law"

There is no such thing as "British law". There is Scots law and there is English law. English law applies in Wales, which had been administered as an integral part of England long before 1707 or come to that 1603. I think there is also such a thing as Irish law, which applied to the whole of Ireland when it was all part of the UK, and has continued to apply to Northern Ireland. But I am not too familiar with Irish legal matters. What I do know is that SCOTS law continued to be distinct after 1707 and many specifically Scots law were passed over the years since then. For example, when an Education Act was passed for England in 1870, a separate Education Act (Scotland) was passed a bit later, with very different (and in some ways better) provisions from the English one.

William_Cleland · This is Ma' Life! Joined: 22 Apr 2007 Posts: 709

Northern Ireland has a separate legal system. In terms of international law the UK consists of three separate legal states. Hence why the Lockerbie case was held under Scots Law.

Rinty · Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 1:20 pm Post subject:

I dont think that there is a 'scots v english law' argument here, and it distracts the real question over the treatment of Ammer Anwar.

Aamer was the opening speaker at the Solidarity conference recently and wasnt allowed to discuss the specific ssue, the TV journalists who attended also were estricted in what Aamer could or couldnt say in interviews afterwards. This already has the effect of shutting him up on the Siddique case and any succesful charges would be a disaster for politics in Scotland.

To me, the statement from the family that Aamer read out after the case embarrassed the judge, the truth hurts at times and he overeacted to the accusations that his court made political decisions, which it clearly did.

But I think the question should be as first stated in the thread heading, the subsequent question about Scotland vs England is irrelevant.

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 806

Rinty wrote "I dont think that there is a 'scots v english law' argument here, and it distracts the real question over the treatment of Ammer Anwar".

I agree that is the real question. Which is precisely why the extremely badly worded question on which we are asked to vote at the top of this page, "Is Scots law at present more fair than British?" only confuses things.

RadgeJougal · Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 4:39 pm Post subject:

It's under attack in the entire UK, thanks to legislation passed since the 1970s by successive Tory and Labour governments.

p.s. Are you doing your bit for "free speech" super Dave?

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 806

Radge Jougal wrote

> Are you doing your bit for "free speech" super Dave?

Apart from a totally un-necessary and completely un-justified personal jibe, what is the point of that remark?

I might ask "Are YOU doing your bit for 'free speech', Radge Jougal?" - except that it would, of course, be a totally pointless question. As there is no such person as "Radge Jougal", there would be no way of anybody verifying whether or not the answer was true.

Red Justice · Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:56 pm Post subject:

Well I do agree with Dave Coull that there is no such thing as British law but rather English law and Scots law etc.. Perhaps best not to put the question without explanation as it is unclear. No Rinty it is not a Scotland vs England thing but more about capitalism or imperialism in Britain and the antiquity of Scots law. The contempt of court situation for Aamar would hot have happened in England under their laws but is an issue about Scots law and freedom of speech outside a Scottish court. At least that is what I am to believe was the case and should be central to the campaign to clear Aamar and his right as a human right lawyer to free speech. The MP that was bugged is a human rights advocate also sinister forces are clearly at work across Britain re human rights.
_________________
Supporting independence and socialism in a nuclear free Scotland:
http://scottishsocfree.blogspot.com
http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=6732691161

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 806

Red Justice wrote "sinister forces are clearly at work across Britain re human rights" - I agree. The particular forms that the attack on human rights takes might sometimes vary a wee bit according to the different legal systems in Scotland and England, but the general tendency in both is towards a growing threat to human rights from government, and from state agencies of various kinds, as well as from quasi-governmental bodies.

Red Justice · Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 9:57 am Post subject:

The different legal systems between Scotland and England often count for little as much Scots Law is or has been superseded by Acts of Parliament from Westminster, quite simply introducing a British element into law in Scotland. Unecessary new draconian anti-terror laws are an example. I grew up in a Scotland where the law of trespass did not exist but freedom to walk Scottish countryside cannot be taken for granted nowadays. Today in Scotland the laws from Westminster undermine our human rights and civil liberties. Centralised decision making from Westminster could be recognised as authoritarian and any idea that we live in a liberal type democracy is worth laughing out loud about.
_________________
Supporting independence and socialism in a nuclear free Scotland:
http://scottishsocfree.blogspot.com
http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=6732691161

Red Justice · Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 10:41 am Post subject:

Aventinian · Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 10:51 am Post subject:

[quote="Dave Coull"]There is no such thing as "British law". There is Scots law and there is English law. English law applies in Wales, which had been administered as an integral part of England long before 1707 or come to that 1603. I think there is also such a thing as Irish law, which applied to the whole of Ireland when it was all part of the UK, and has continued to apply to Northern Ireland. But I am not too familiar with Irish legal matters. What I do know is that SCOTS law continued to be distinct after 1707 and many specifically Scots law were passed over the years since then.

That's a load of nonsense, to be frank. Yes, of course there is distinctive post-1707 Scots law. There is distinctive post-1707 laws of local application all over the UK. I don't hear you bleating on about Orcadian law, although it certainly exists.

If you're referring to the position under the Act of Union, that was largely realised by Scotland becoming a separate legal jurisdiction from England.

To deny the existence of a framework of British law is to, quite simply, deny reality. I wonder if your selective application only applies to nationalities that you don't like, or if European law and international law are so affected too.
_________________
The resident pantomime villain.
'Socialists cry "Power to the people", and raise the clenched fist as they say it. We all know what they really mean—power over people, power to the State.'

Aventinian · Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 10:57 am Post subject:

Red Justice · Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 11:12 am Post subject:

Rinty · Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 11:26 am Post subject:

"Perhaps the poll should of been worded is Scots law more fair than British decision making?"

Why?

The first question that started the thread "is freedom of speech under attack?" was sufficient, why does the poll question have to be a comparison with England or the UK as neither will tell us much about the situation in Scotland.

The 'terror' laws are very dangerous, we have seen protesters at arms fairs arrested under terrorism laws, protest at parliament closed down, old men thrown out of Labour conferences and held for questioning under terror legisalation and constant push from New Labour for less influence by juries in the justice system and more detention without trial.

An active group of students in Dundee were the subject of special branch attention simply because a high number of muslims were involved in anti-war activity.

We are getting to the stage where being against govt policy abroad can be seen as promoting terrorism. When rendition flights fly through Scotland and the EU it seems that no-one can or will do anything about it, the police even refuse to investigate it.

Red Justice · Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 11:37 am Post subject:

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 806

To the question in the heading of this topic, "is freedom of speech under attack in Scotland?", my answer would be "yes". But if you were to ask me a similar question, about any country, at any time, I would always answer "yes". There are always threats to freedom of speech, everywhere, everywhen. The price of such freedom of speech as we have at any time is eternal vigilance. There are _always_ people trying to take our freedom of speech away. As for the question in the so-called "poll" at the top of this page, it is so confused, I see absolutely no point in voting on it. Whichever way it goes, the outcome of the poll on this meaningless question will itself be totally meaningless.

Yes, the Aamer Anwar case is significant. But whoever devised this meaningless poll did nothing to help Mr. Anwar in doing so.

Rinty writes "The 'terror' laws are very dangerous, we have seen protesters at arms fairs arrested under terrorism laws, protest at parliament closed down, old men thrown out of Labour conferences and held for questioning under terror legislation and constant push from New Labour for less influence by juries in the justice system and more detention without trial. An active group of students in Dundee were the subject of special branch attention simply because a high number of muslims were involved in anti-war activity. We are getting to the stage where being against govt policy abroad can be seen as promoting terrorism. When rendition flights fly through Scotland and the EU it seems that no-one can or will do anything about it, the police even refuse to investigate it."

All of this is true. Although there is always a threat to freedom of speech, the level of this threat has increased, is increasing, and should be opposed.

Aventinian · Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 2:37 pm Post subject: