McKinnon, Laws that Cross Borders, and Pirates

Thanks to everyone who responded to the recent call for feedback on how the party should respond to Gary McKinnon's campaign and the wider issues it raises.  It looks like the bulk of answers are in, so here is my analysis of the steer from the party.

• The party's membership is generally very supportive of Gary as an individual, but some are understandably reluctant for assistance to be Gary to be overly politicized or for the party to adopt an official line on one specific case. I interpret that to mean that individuals (including officers) can use party resources (primarily the website) to disseminate information about how to support Gary's campaign but that party will take no position on Gary's case as a party. Individuals give support to Gary in their own name and not the party's. There is also no expectation that anybody must or should be active in campaigning for Gary, and hence it is down to a personal choice. The party's role will just be to facilitate the sharing of information on how to support Gary.

• Most of the membership does believe that the impact of cross-border law and changes in extradition should be incorporated into our formal policy-making process. The scope of the party's agenda has been clarified to embrace these topics, even though they are not obviously part of the 'three pillars' of policy.  We will hence include relevant policies in our manifesto. WilliamFS, manifesto coordinator is tasked to impartially consider how to incorporate the topic within our existing policy formulation framework.  The membership was also generally supportive of the suggested outline policy-cum-press release, and this will serve as a starting point for both drafting policy and drafting public communications about it.

Thanks again to everyone who has contributed their opinions.  The exercise has been a model for how to intelligently debate the real issues and seek a compromise that best represents the wishes of the party's membership.  The greatest concern was with extending the party's scope beyond the three pillars.  Speaking personally, I'm generally inclined to keep the party's scope narrow and not extend beyond the three pillars, especially when we have so much work to do to settle core policy.  Hopefully those of you who would have preferred to exclude cross-border laws and extradition from scope can accept that I would not make lightly recommend an extension to scope.  However, in this one instance, it appears to be appropriate and consistent with the overall ethos of a party sensitive to the key issues that need to be addressed in the era of the internet.

Let us move forward and do what we can to enshrine justice in our legal system.  Nobody wants to see the kind of injustice that Gary McKinnon faces.  As individuals we can play our part in helping Gary.  Meanwhile, the party can work to ensure that arbitrary foreign laws do not hang over the heads of every British citizen who ventures on to the internet.