I suppose that the sense of frustration is understandable – the United Kingdom had presumably felt itself immune from Islamist terrorism not only because of an arrogant sense of belief in the infallibility of their security systems but also because terrorist cells had so long used London as their base and one does not, generally, do the proverbial on their own doorstep. That notwithstanding, however, London was attacked on 7th July and, unsuccessfully, on 21st July. The attacks shocked Londoners certainly, but they were not as serious as attacks seen in New York, Madrid, Kenya and, indeed, Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, while tragic, London’s attacks were probably the least costly in terms of human life of all the Al-Qaeida related attacks in recent years. What, however, the cost in liberty?
As is customary in cases of terrorism the government has responded to these attacks by clamping down on security (including allegations of racial profiling only partially denied by the Metropolitan Police Force) and clamping down on rights. Last Friday Tony Blair announced that he would introduce wide ranging new anti-terrorism laws and that he would, if necessary, ‘rewrite’ the Human Rights Act 1998 in order to do so. Rewriting the Act, of course, consists of de-righting it, which is the great pity. In times of terrorism it is so easy to sacrifice rights and liberty in order to protect ‘national security’ and ‘the common good’. It is also easy to convince a frightened and victimized public that these curtailments in liberty are necessary, especially when they never appear to conceive of them being applied to ‘us’, for misjudgments and miscarriages of justice never happen…particularly when things are being done in secret terror courts and under draconian laws. It is also easy to convince mainstream Muslims that they should show their support for these laws, not necessarily because they believe in their sensibility and efficacy, but because to do otherwise would see them labeled ‘other’ and ‘fundamentalist’.
A number of key recommendations from Blair include:
Expanded grounds for deporting foreigners, including fostering hatred, advocating violence to further a person's beliefs or justifying such violence.
While on first glance this may seem perfectly reasonable the problem arises where the person may be being returned to a country where they are likely to be subjected to torture or inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. To do this would be in breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is an absolute and non-derogable right without any limitation whatsoever. The Government has said they will receive ‘assurances’ from recipient governments that the returnees will not be subjected to such treatment, or to the death penalty, however this may not satisfy the standard required to avoid breach of Article 3. And what is to happen when a country will not provide such an assurance? Or where there is evidence of such assurances not having been honoured in the past??
Creating a new crime of condoning or glorifying terrorism.
I don’t even know how one might define such a thing in legal terms – what about freedom of thought and expression? If I were to say, as I often have, that I felt that there was some justification for the terrorist actions in London (i.e. UK foreign policy, disenfranchisement etc…) although I do not support them would that mean I was guilty of an offence?? For holding and voicing an opinion alone? One that I did not intend to incite a crime or lead to harm? One with which I was not even reckless?
This offence appears to me to be designed to please what I call ‘the Mirror Mob’ (i.e. red top readers who need to be pacified with something that sounds vaguely satisfactory) but I wouldn’t fancy the job of trying to draft or enforce the law.
Refusing asylum to anyone with terrorism links.
If terrorism links are going to be defined as widely and vaguely as they are in the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act then this is simply preposterous.
Expanding the government's powers to strip citizenship from naturalized citizens if they participate in extremism.
My immediate reaction to this is – what?? Again questions of the definition of ‘participating in extremism’ are vital to this decision. Clearly the government feels curtailed by the fact that they can’t deport citizens, for example, so this is designed as a means of changing one’s status from citizen to non-citizen in order to deport. Its single application to naturalized citizens equally reveals its racially motivated roots.
Considering expanding police powers to hold terrorist suspects for three months without charge. The current time limit is 14 days.
I am fascinated about how they are going to get around the ECHR with this one….
