Luthori

[Ligbruderkrieg]

The Home Secretary has today introduced to the Chamber of Representatives, the so-called “Crime Prevention and Protection Bill”, a government bill primarily aiming, at least according to the Home Secretary, at the “prevention of future crimes by giving law enforcement organisations the necessary tools to act”.

Mrs. Harper, as the Secretary of State for Home Affairs and even before her appointment to the position, has repeatedly called for the enactment of a “harsher crime bill” seeking to “root out the evil of criminality from our communities”, even as in her swearing-in ceremony, the Home Secretary described the policies of previous administrations as “lacking” at best.

Mrs. Harper has stated that the Department of Home Affairs was targeting the “main issue” with criminality and that being the lack of preventive actions to prevent them. In the bill, the National Police Department and the local law enforcement agencies will receive new orders to become far more “in touch” with a community’s inhabitants, as it would require the police to remain at less than 17 miles (27 km) from an habitation in urban centers, although this limit will be increased at 35 miles (40 km) in rural areas due to the lesser numbers of policemen and policewomen in these areas. 

Patrols are also stated to be increased, as of now, the National Police doesn’t force a set number of patrols per neighborhoods, for the Home Secretary, this state of affairs “cannot stand” and has argued that the police be patrolling every neighborhood in urban centers at least thrice in a month.

The Act also tackles the issue of intelligence gathering, empowering the Government of Luthori in terms of data collection, it states that the Domestic Intelligence Agency will be able, as per with “reasonable concerns” and a court order to collect data from known criminals and criminal organisations for use in their fight against these said organisations. According to Number 10, the Luthorian government’s “lack of legislative tools” to combat crime organisations was the main driver towards the “increase in crime rates” that Fort William observed in recent years.

While the Conservative Party ultimately wholeheartedly supported the Home Secretary’s bill, alongside the Hosian Democrats as well, the Liberal Party remained divided, with some lamenting the bill’s perceived attack on “individual liberties” through the surveillance and data monitoring of some individuals, the bill’s emergency protocol, which states that custody can be raised from initially 24 to 36 hours in case of “great risks” to the nation and that it could be extended as much time as needed by law enforcement officers (as opposed to 24 hours under current legislation).

The usage of this policy would need to be backed up by the preliminary use from the government of an act empowering its capabilities in the name of “national security” and previously passed as an Act of Parliament (such as the War Measures Act), it would also need to provide proof to courts that the bill’s invocation was due to domestic and/or foreign threats.

The Liberal MP acting as Government Chief Leader in the House, Hayes Allen, stated that the bill had “caused a great deal of distraught” to the Liberal caucus in both Houses of Parliament, but that ultimately, the Liberals were expected to “fall in line” with the government’s proposals, stating that “the security in our communities remains a Liberal commitment during the campaign and one that we believe is strongly supported by this Bill.”

Mr. Allen nevertheless stated that the Liberals would bring amendments to the bill to reduce the risks of government “overreach” on individual liberties and internet rights.

In the Opposition, meanwhile, reactions have been more mixed, the Communists, Radical Democrats have each called this move “dictatorial” and an "infringement on the Luthorian people’s sovereign right to not be spied upon by their government”, the Official Opposition in the National Labour Party has already expressed its opposition to the proposed bill, not because of opposition to the Home Secretary’s program, but because of its so-called “anti-poor profile”, they argue that the Bill will be focused on Luthori’s poor populations, specifically those of immigrant backgrounds, which in Labour’s eyes, will be systematically race-profiled as per with the provisions of the Bill.

The Leader of the Opposition Pat Holland stated that the Labour Party would “fiercely” rebuff any attempt at pushing this Bill in either Houses of Parliament.

The Green Party also expressed concern at the risk towards individual liberties and expressed opposition. The Radical Liberals, who originally turned towards an opposition to the Bill, swinged opinions, with a majority of their MPs expressing disapproval of the government’s measure, but a minority being “opened” towards “negotiations” for “some part of the Bill”, according to Radical Liberal House Leader, Rebecca Graham.