It smells unconstitutional to me because it is an attack on individual sovereignty and the right to privacy. I would love to hear an expert or two give their opinion on the matter.
> 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
> 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
[Note the exceptions, which are (by design) wide enough to drive a bus through]
An Act of Parliament restricting end-to-end encryption for the expressed purposes of preventing crime and preventing terrorist atrocities would fairly clearly be constitutional, I think. Even if it was ruled incompatible with the ECHR, the courts have no power to overturn primary legislation - just to punt it back to Parliament with a declaration of incompatibility.
If a minister tried to do it without Parliament under the royal prerogative or secondary legislation, I think the chance of it being overturned as unlawful are somewhat higher.
I'm a political scientist, not a lawyer, mind.
I think the larger problem is that the British people either don't care about - or don't understand the implications of - losing encryption. Either they don't believe their privacy will be affected or they don't imagine that they have anything to hide from the 3rd parties, be it the authorities, corporations, or criminals.
I suppose one could argue that the British constitution is working correctly as it is malleable enough to flex with attitudes, but we also know that the attitudes of politicians are diverging quite substantially from the people they claim to represent.
I also wonder if the constitution itself has become increasingly weak and irrelevant, and if it has, is that because the Monarchy, whose sole purpose is to live and breath the constitution, have become increasingly weak and irrelevant.
A withholding of assent could bring a constitutional crisis, but it's possible [1].
As with much else in the constitution, the 'on the advice of her ministers' is normally (binding) convention rather than statute.
So you're saying that watching most hentai is borderline illegal in the UK? That's crazy.
The requirements for getting you to hand over your keys are a bit stricter than "they ask for them". The long and complex law is here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/contents
The RIPA sentences for failure to handover passwords is either 2 years or 5 years. It's 5 years for child indecency cases, but the relevant laws are listed in subsection 7, and it doesn't include The Coroners and Justice Act of April 2009. (And that only applied to England, Wales, and NI. It doesn't apply to Scotland.)
It's not clear that most hentai is made illegal by the C&JA2009. See below.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/part/III
(7)Those provisions are—
(a)section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (showing or taking etc an indecent photograph of a child: England and Wales);
(b)Article 3 of the Protection of Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 (S.I. 1978/1047 (N.I. 17)) (corresponding offence for Northern Ireland);
(c)section 52 or 52A of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (showing or taking etc or possessing an indecent photograph of a child: Scotland);
(d)section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (possessing an indecent photograph of a child: England and Wales);
(e)Article 15 of the Criminal Justice (Evidence, Etc.) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (S.I. 1988/1847 (N.I. 17)) (corresponding offence for Northern Ireland).]
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/part/2/chapter/2
(2)A prohibited image is an image which—
(a)is pornographic,
(b)falls within subsection (6), and
(c)is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.
(5)“Child”, subject to subsection (6), means a person under the age of 18.
(6)Where an image shows a person the image is to be treated as an image of a child if—
(a)the impression conveyed by the image is that the person shown is a child, or
(b)the predominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is a child despite the fact that some of the physical characteristics shown are not those of a child.> I'd suggest it could be argued lots of hentai fails (c).
I'm not so sure. Perhaps images that don't display any act of sex taking place, and just nudity or even swimsuit (e.g ecchi) would qualify, but most hentai does display acts of sex taking place. Either way, might the subject, being a "child" hold sway on whether it is considered "disgusting" or not? I'd think it would.
>the predominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is a child despite the fact that some of the physical characteristics shown are not those of a child.
Yes, this is the part that I was talking about when I talked about breast size and antennae.
Either way I am wholly opposed to such a law, and I think the arguments used to support it are weak.
Even for the most battle-hardened politician near the end of their career, this issue is a minefield.
So perhaps "people don't care" isn't sufficient and a mistake on my part, though I have spoken to people who say that they are "not concerned" about the topic, despite being rather liberal in terms of freedom of expression otherwise.
It's reverse hill climbing via million slippery slopes.
The people who wrote the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights survived a time when the most powerful army in the world was marching through their backyards. I have no doubt they had that in mind when they were writing freedoms into law.
The idea that the UK parliament would abolish courts doesn't really need addressing, it's so absurd. I take it you're also aware that we regularly (some would say too regularly) democratically elect parliament? That's usually consider a check if not a balance.
The problem isn't the lack of a UK constitution or any of the other specious arguments. The problem is that a large number of people, very probably the majority, either agree with this idea or simply don't care. At the very least they don't care enough to make it an important issue in a general election and we've just had a couple.