Read Online Heaven's Door by Michael Knaggs - Free Book Online Page B

tackle the biggest thing first, and then when that’s sorted, you move onto the biggest of the things that remain.
    â€œAnd let me remind you that this comes under secondary legislation, which, as you know, enables the government to make changes using powers conferred – in this case in the Act of Parliament which includes the NJR Directive – without going through full parliamentary procedure. The debate on Monday is merely a vehicle to enable the members to air their views, but is
not
a stage in an approval process. This extension, in fact, was in the Party’s manifesto, which was embraced by the largest majority of voters in any election for over ninety years. So I hardly …”
    â€œExcept that it wasn’t actually
part
of the manifesto, was it, Home Secretary? It was
mentioned
in the manifesto as a possibility for the future. I think that’s true, isn’t it?” Tom thought the words sounded surprisingly familiar.
    â€œWell, if we’re playing with semantics, then I think it’s true to say that today
is
the future in relation to when that statement was made. So, however it was included in the manifesto, what we have done is consistent with our promise.”
    â€œVery well, but let’s recap on the distinction between those currently qualifying for exile status and a convicted criminal, because that is where this change is
inconsistent
. The principle is that someone may find themselves exiled if they continuously or repeatedly disrupt their communities. It is all about
behaviour
, is it not?”
    â€œThat’s right, and exactly what we promised …”
    â€œI think that is clear to everyone. Mr John Deverall put it very succinctly in his famous – and oft-quoted – speech from the dock.” She read again from further down the same sheet. “He said ‘the fundamental question should not be are they guilty or not guilty? It should be would society be better or not
without
these people in it? If the answer is ‘better’, then it is the law’s duty to make it so by removing them.’” She looked up from the sheet. “Whether one agrees or not with the
means
of removing them, the argument for doing it is perfectly logical.”
    â€œSo are you saying,” said Tom, shuffling in his chair, “that such a rationale should
not
apply to dealers in illegal drugs? Is there
any
doubt, in fact, that society – the world – would be better without these people?”
    â€œWell, you’ve asked two different questions there, Home Sec …”
    â€œWell, give me two different answers, then.”
    â€œAlright, answer to the second one – of course, the world would be better without them. Okay? Your
first
question – I paraphrase – should the ‘better or not’ criterion apply to them? Well, collectively, yes, but individually, no.”
    Tom leaned forward in his chair.
    â€œLet me ask a different question at this point, Home Secretary. Are there any contingency plans in existence that would allow you to retrieve Exiles from the off-shore facilities – like Platform Alpha – once they have been put there?”
    Tom paused.
    â€œNo,” he said. “This was a decision taken to ensure that such a step was irreversible and we have made this very clear to the public from the beginning. We felt it was essential that offenders – or
potential
offenders – were aware of the finality of this step. Their actions would, in effect, seal their fate
forever
. But I will say again that we envisage it will apply only to a very small …”
    â€œYou don’t have to justify your reasons to me, Home Secretary, or, it seems, the electorate. It
was
made perfectly clear at the time; people knew what they were voting for. But that was based on the certainty of the people on Alpha
deserving
to be there. ‘Long term extreme disruption and intimidation in their