The holes in the analogy come thick and fast.
In the Weimar republic Judges were independent, bound only by law, protected from arbitrary removal and duty bound by Article 109 to safeguard equality before the law.
In 1933, with “protective custody” (Schutzhaft) in 1933, police power became independent of judicial controls. In Nazi terminology, protective custody meant the arrest–without judicial review–of real and potential opponents of the regime.
Control Orders in the UK were passed in 2005 and gave police the right to place citizens under permanent house arrest with an electronic tag without any judicial intervention, that is, outside of the court system.
The Terrorism Prevention Act gave the State the power to detain citizens indefinitely by identifying them as a terror threat, without reference to a judge or a court. This amounts to protective custody.
The Nazis set fire to the German parliament building (the Reichstag) in February 1933 and pinned the blame on the Communists in a move which was pivotal in bringing Hitler to power. The point was to provoke such fear that Communists were mounting a coup, that a strong National Socialist was required to quell the rebellion and restore stability. It succeeded.
However, when the suspects were brought before the court, all but one of the suspects (a mentally incapacitated Dutchman who had confessed) were found not guilty. The ruling incensed the regime that within a month they had passed legislation which removed the right to try cases of treason at the Supreme Court. Henceforth, this responsibility would be carried out by the new People’s Court which as we know was no court at all.
When British citizens started to be released from Guantanamo Bay and seek justice for their treatment, the UK government first appealed to the courts to block the cases, then to redact information that would show their complicity in torture and rendition, and finally sought to pay people off.
As the compensation bills mounted, they changed tack and drafted The Justice and Security Bill, which stipulates that in future, all such civil cases will be tried in secret courts. These courts would be blocked to the media and the state would be able to present its argument and evidence to the judge in the absence of the plaintiff in the case.
Ok, to name a few.
for example no PM is seen as a redeeming figure of national pride and an economic saviour.
Some would say Mrs T was that. The point I'm making here is that currently the Government has an extraordinary set of legislation. Control orders came in, and the then opposition said they would remove them, but they didn't. That sort of power is hard to give up.
All this legislation will be on the books for a very long time to come, do you know what kind of government we will have in the future?