According to
Peter Hain, it is “constitutionally
an outrage” that Special Branch continued to keep files on him and 9 other
MPs after they were elected to the House of Commons. It seems to me that he’s outraged about the
wrong thing here.
There will
always be different opinions about whether, and to what extent, the security
services should be keeping an eye on what political groups are doing. Personally, I think it’s outrageous that they
should ever do so unless they have clearly evidenced grounds for suspicion of
criminal activity. Others will disagree;
and I accept that. But using that
definition, I really don’t see why anyone’s status as an MP should affect that.
If there’s
suspicion that an MP is involved in criminal activity (and recent events over
expenses etc. surely prove that MPs are no different to the rest of the
population in this regard), then why should they be exempt from the attention
of the security services?
The real
outrage here is that any MP should apparently think that it’s OK for the
security services to keep files on anyone they like - except MPs. One rule for them, and another rule for
everyone else. His call for the enquiry
to look specifically at the surveillance of MPs misses the point entirely; it’s
the fact of the surveillance being undertaken at all which needs review, not
who was being watched.
Posts
1 comment:
Perhaps the big story here is that british intelligence seriously thought the likes of jack straw, peter hain and harriet harman were worth monitoring in the late 1990s. This trio in particular had by then long since cut their ties with their more radical days of the 1970s and enbraced 'nulabourism'.
Sadly if anything this story has the effect of giving the likes of hain, straw and harmann a veneer of radicalism they certainly dont deserve.
Post a Comment