For the avoidance of doubt I am not referring to vigilantes but to secret courts.
I can accept that perhaps in very very limited circumstances matters of genuine national security may need to be dealt with behind closed doors.
However I am deeply opposed to the current proliferation of secret justice.
Recent examples include the NSA where it is difficult to see how secret justice has been used to do anything other than keep the actions of the NSA a secret as the full revelations are hugely damaging to the USA. This should ring the obvious alarm bell of "is what we are doing right?"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22394488 wrote:The "important guidance" for the judiciary was issued during a brief hearing at London's Royal Courts of Justice by the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Lord Judge, and Sir James Munby, president of both the High Court's Family Division and the Court of Protection.
They announced: "It is a fundamental principle of the administration of justice in England and Wales that applications for committal for contempt should be heard and decided in public, that is, in open court."
Equally, the fact that a hearing "may involve the disclosure of material which ought not to be published does not of itself justify hearing the application in private if such publication can be restrained by an appropriate order", they said.
I can understand the desire for restricted access to family courts, however I think holding the whole court in secret is wrong, anonymised records and judgments can be made public.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21885811 wrote:Supreme Court president, Lord Neuberger, said a secret hearing in this case was "absolutely necessary".
The justices spent approximately 45 minutes in a locked session with two security-vetted lawyers. The hearing was so sensitive that the justices had to leave one courtroom and set up in another which had greater soundproofing. A security guard stood outside to prevent anyone trying to enter.
The Supreme Court had decided earlier this week that it had the power to close its doors and consider a secret judgement from the lower courts - but the justices had said they did not want to do so because they did not think it was necessary.
The justices are being asked to overturn a Treasury ban on an Iranian bank operating in the UK.
Is the operation of a bank really a matter of the deepest secrecy?
Im concerned by the growing desire by those in power to act in secrecy as much as possible, this isnt restricted to the government but also the NHS, Care industry and of course the Copyright industry. Too often things are kept secret to avoid embarrassment and the issues remain unaddressed. Whistle blowers are particularly hated and are unlikely to work in their industry again, or if its against the government they will be silenced and imprisoned. This should not be happening in western democracies, we are supposed to have left this behind. Openess and transparency are supposed to be things that set us apart from China et al, the reality appears to be that we are better at keeping it quiet.
Last edited by Cheeky_Ninja06 (2013-10-23 05:24:45)