For a primer, try my previous entry or the BBC article.

Good afternoon. I had intended to make this statement in the House of Commons, the appropriate place in my view for something as important as this but the speaker ruled that because it revisited controversial issues from yesterday it was not appropriate. So I'm going to read the statement I was about to make in the House. It will take a couple of minutes

Because, god forbid that Parliament should hear of dissent.

Before I start, the name of my constituency is Haltemprice and Howdem. Haltemprice is derived from a medieval proverb meaning 'noble endevour'. Up until yesterday I took view that what we did in the House of Commons representing our constituents was a noble endevour because for centuries of forebears we defended the freedoms of the British people. Well we did up until yesterday.

This Sunday is the anniversary of the Magna Carta. The document that guarantees that most fundamental of British freedoms: Haebeous Corpus - the right not to be imprisoned by the state without charge or reason. But yesterday this House decided to allow the state to lock up potentially innocent citizens for up to six weeks without charge. Now the Counter Terrorism Bill will in all probability be rejected by the House of Lords very firmly - after all what should they be there for if not to defend the Magna Carta?

But because the impetuous behind this is essentially political, not security, the government will be tempted to use the Parliament Act to overrule the Lords. It has no democratic mandate to do this since 42 days was not in its manifesto. Its legal basis is uncertain to say the least, but purely for political reasons this government's going to do that.

That and the fact that their manifesto has never mattered to them. Variable tuition fees anyone?

But because the generic security arguments relied on will not go away - technology, developing complexity and so on, we'll next see 56 days, 70 days, 90 days. But in truth, 42 days is just one - perhaps the most salient - example of the insidious, surreptitious and relentless erosion of fundamental British freedoms. We will have, shortly, the most intrusive identity card programme in the world, a CCTV camera for every 14 citizens, a DNA database bigger than any dictatorship has with thousands of innocent children and millions of innocent citizens on it. We witness an assault on jury trials that bulwark against bad law and its arbitrary abuse by the state. Shortcuts with our justice system that make our system neither firm, nor fair. And the creation of a database state, opening up our private lives to the prying eyes of official snoopers and exposing our personal data to careless civil servants and criminal hackers. The state has security powers to clamp down on peaceful protest and so called hate laws that stifle legitimate debate while those who incite violence get off scott free. This cannot go on, it must be stopped and for that reason today I feel it is incumbent on me to take this stand.

Oh dear, "so called hate laws" the wheels are starting to fall off.

I will be resigning my membership of the House and I intend to force a by-election in Haltemprice and Howden. Now, I'll not fight it on the government's general record - there's no point in repeating Crewe and Nantwich. I won't fight it on my personal record - I am just a piece in this great chess game. I will fight it, I will argue in this by-election against the slow strangulation of fundamental British freedoms by this government. Now, that may mean I've made my last speech to the House. It's possible. But, of course, that would be a cause of deep regret for me. But at least my electorate and the nation as a whole would have had the opportunity to debate and consider one of the most fundamental issues of our day - the ever intrusive power of the state into our lives. The loss of privacy. The loss of freedom. And the steady attrition undermining the rule of law.

And if they do send me back here, it will be with a single, simple message: that the monstrosity of the law we passed yesterday will not stand.

The speech said a lot of good things. I agreed with almost every portion. My biggest problem, unsurprisingly, comes with his "so called hate laws". This would be the laws banning incitement to (religious, racial, sexual orientation) hatred. These are the laws which have been attacked - especially the religious incarnation - for threatening freedom of speech. Ironically, I was planning on writing a big article on Freedom of Speech tonight, but then this blew up and my mind got overwritten. I am wary of hate crime legislation. I am also very pro-free speech. Hate crime legislation can risk being an attack on free speech but you have to ask what free speech is about. Is it about politics and debate, or is it about attacking people based on unchoosable aspects of themselves? Is it about communication and learning or nastiness and oppression? Hate crime legislation tries to tackle that question and needs careful monitoring if it is to stay on the right side of that line.

Davies has a spotchy record on civil liberties. He claims now to be in favour of freedom but in 2003 he voted against the repeal of section 28 - a piece of legislation which prevented teachers from discussing those issues he dislikes - hardly promoting freedom. In 2003 he advocated bringing back the death penalty (in certain cases). The death penalty - the ultimate in denial of future justice - something he claims now to be defending with all his power. In 2007 he voted for the renewal of control orders - orders which place people under extremely restrictive house arrest without charge or right of appeal in obvious violation of the Haebeus Corpus right he just extolled. He was absent for the 2008 vote. I should also point out that he voted (unsuccessfully) to get control orders issued by the courts rather than secretary of state and voted, initially, in favour of a strong "sunset clause" (which would require full debate on those laws after the first year) again unsuccessfully, and then in favour of the weak "sunset clause" (requiring those renewal votes he has subsequently voted in favour of). These are important questions he will have to answer to.

But perhaps more important is can this man lead a national debate on the government's appalling assault on our liberties? Will the public take note? Will they remember that this is a campaign based not on Conservative policies, but on the issue of the government's attack on civil liberties. Will they remember that this is not a Tory campaign, but an individuals. Will they remember that one principled person does not a decent party make. Robin Cook stood down over the Iraq war - it didn't change his party. Davis standing down over 42 days could change the nature of the debate substantially. But will it? Can the left and civil liberties campaigners trust him enough or overshadow him enough to win the debate? Or will we do exactly what I've done in this post and attack his history? I'm probably going to end up doing a series of articles on my views on Civil Liberties and will try and make this the sole place where I attack Davis' history. His present, his future though is still fair game.

Alex
x x