It’s no surprise that the Blair years were tough ones for those of us that care deeply about the fundamental rights of the British people. Time and again, liberty was crushed under-foot by a statist juggernaut that thought nothing of taxing and regulating, of criminalising and persecuting.

When citing the government’s illiberalism, legislativism, or centralism, the statistic that is usually brought up is the staggering number of human actions outlawed since 1997: over 3,000, or almost 1 new criminal offence a day, by one count. That’s scary statism at its worst (ironically, according to opinion polls, the public thinks it’s New Labour at its best).

However, that legislative diarrhoea is not even nearly the worst of it. Because, actually, the government doesn’t need to criminalise your action to punish you for it. Under the Terrorism Act 2006, anyone can be detained without trial for 28 days, and treated like a criminal, without the need for the authorities to grant even the courtesy of explaining why one is being detained. The 14-day period was probably intolerable in itself (press charges first, then keep them imprisoned for two weeks: not the other way around). The current limit is worse.

However, despite the current 28-day limit being an Intolerable Act perpetrated against the freedom of man, the government wants to push it further. Gordon Brown has announced his desire to DOUBLE that time again, up to 56 days. In the Commons today, he said that he was “not in favour of indefinite detention”, yet went on to justify his doctrine of imprisoning the innocent for two months because it would be subject to “parliamentary votes”.

Ahem. Pardon my cynicism. So it won’t be decided by Downing Street, but by the House of Commons? And the Prime Minister is nominated by? Oh, right, the House of Commons. Sure, it’s true the government lost the last time they tried to push the 90-day measure through, but that only goes to prove how bad a law it was. Then again, when you have Desmond Tutu comparing your policies to those in Apartheid South Africa, you can be pretty sure it’s not exactly a good law.

The fact that’s lost on Brown, and most people in politics for that matter, is that it doesn’t really matter who’s responsible. Whether it’s an executive or a legislative, an elected officer or an unelected one, an elderly reactionary or a youthful radical, any tyranny is tyranny enough. The fact that Parliament gets to vote, rather than being passed by diktat, is no saving grace. Not for those left to rot in Belmarsh, and not for British liberties.