THIS CASE GOES TO THE HEART OF WHAT DEMOCRACY MEANS

Originally from: Natalie
                        
This article is from today's WMN – I sent it earlier but it was in an attatachment and I know people are nervous about opening attatchments these days. Regards NATALIE

16 March 2002

The request for a public inquiry to learn the truth about foot and mouth disease was not just about country folk and their animals who were abused and trodden down by Government, it was much bigger than this.

The Government has described foot and mouth as the greatest disaster to strike this country since the Second World War, and if it can avoid a public inquiry into such a disaster it sets a precedent for any Government to avoid holding any future public inquiries into other disasters that might visit this country.

I accept that the number of people affected by FMD represent only a minority in this country, and the Attorney General argued in the High Court that if people disagree with the decision not to hold a public inquiry, they have redress at the ballot box.

However, minorities do not control ballot boxes and countries are judged by how they treat their minorities – perhaps that is now all going to change.

It has been part of the democratic process of this country to hold public inquiries into major disasters.

If the High Court sides with the Government and refuses to hold a public inquiry into such a disaster, then those judges must bear the responsibility of setting a precedent for denying public inquiries into any future disasters that occur in this country.

The Prime Minister, ministers and senior officials have refused to give evidence in public. The EU has ordered its own public inquiry into FMD. Does that mean that those same people who refuse to give evidence in public in this country will give that same evidence in public but in a foreign land?

Perhaps we should be grateful to the EU for preserving some of our democratic rights and stop us edging towards a Zimbabwe-style of government.

I believe that there is a saying that in order for evil to prevail, good people only need to stay silent. I think it is the truth behind that saying that forced various people from around the country to come together to seek this judicial review.

Justice is not cheap and there is no financial reward in achieving a public inquiry. Various newspapers, including the WMN, have agreed to underwrite part of the adverse costs. However, the claimants will still have to find a considerable amount of money to pay the balance of adverse costs.

Barristers and solicitors are often accused of being greedy. It should be noted in this case that they have all worked on a "no win, no fee" basis and have therefore incurred considerable costs for the sake of the public good.

More than 400,000 people from around the country have signed petitions requesting a public inquiry into FMD and it is supported by the NFU, CLA and the Countryside Alliance.

The claimants now have 28 days to launch an appeal to the House of Lords but it will require £750,000 to fund such an appeal.

We are hoping that groups who wish to prevent the erosion of constitutional rights will fund such an appeal, otherwise this country has taken one step along the road to the loss of democracy.