The government is eroding the protection afforded to people in their own homes – wasn't that an emblem of British civilisation?

There will come a day when everyone understands that the Justice Minister Jack Straw ranks as one of the bigger menaces to our free society. Whatever issue you care to consider – the macro or the micro – Jack Straw is chipping away at freedom, accountability and openness. He really should be hauled before a commission of good democrats, exposed and made to account for his sins with community service order and a Day-Glo jacket.

Today we will look at a micro issue – the disgraceful behaviour of his department over the Courts and Tribunal Enforcement Act, the law which ends 400 years of the tradition that an Englishman's home is his castle and allows bailiffs to march into that home and seize what goods they like in settlement of a fine (think ID card fines; think of the pressure people are going to experience in this recession).

It is not misty-eyed to say that the protection afforded to people in their own homes was truly an emblem of British civilisation. The judge who defined the law, in 1605, said:

"That the house of every one is to him his castle and fortress, as well as for the defence against injury and violence as for his repose."

Our government is no respecter of history or of tradition, and it cares little about setting a lot of thugs on people who are frail or cannot protect themselves, like Andy Miller, the pub landlord driven to a cashpoint machine in order to settle a fine, who collapsed and died.

It is clear that householders are going to be offered violence in their own homes owing to this law, but the trouble is that no one has been able to discover under what circumstances bailiffs will be able to push people aside while seizing a TV or computer or the wedding picture in a silver frame.

The Rev Paul Nicolson, who from the start steadily opposed these measures for the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust, has been trying to find out how much force will be used, and when. Unlike most government ministers, Nicolson understands what life is like today for the vulnerable and poor – the people who were once championed by Labour – and he has a good sense of the injustice and hardship that will result from these new laws.

He's been very persistent: in 2007 he was sent the draft guidance for bailiffs and magistrates with 30 pages blacked out in answer to his question, "What are the circumstances and who decides on a last resort when a bailiff can break in to enforce a fine?"

That's 30 pages of information vital to the public interest kept secret by the Department of Justice for reasons that it refused to provide. Who the hell do they think are? By what right do they order this profound change in society and yet keep it from the public? How dare they?

In an email to me, the persistent Nicolson reports"

"Force against the person is proposed in Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. A power to use force does not include power to use force against persons, except to the extent that regulations provide that it does. Those regulations are now being written. The Zacchaeus 2000 Trust is campaigning to ensure they never see the light of day."

He made a formal complaint to the information commissioner and eventually received a copy of the regulations with a mere 15 pages blacked out. Why the continued secrecy? The Ministry of Justice answers that it is concerned for the health and safety of bailiffs.

You just could not make it up.