If you believe that an individual’s rights are the pillar on which societies stand, and the judicial system the weapon to secure those rights, then Britain is on a slippery slope with its new rushed through Prevention of Terrorism Act.
From the point of view of Britons, the new laws are grim indeed. For the first time, British nationals can be subjected to control orders without ever knowing why, at the whim of the home secretary, provided a sympathetic judge signs off on his order.
Championed by Tony Blair and his new Home Secretary Charles Clarke, the legislation is unpopular with not only opposition parties and most members of Britain’s second chamber, the House of Lords, but also with many of their own Labour backbenchers.
Yet, the party whips came out, the horse-trading began in earnest with minor concessions being made to the bill’s opponents before it was eventually passed with a 12-month “sunset (termination) clause”. Why the hurry?
The new laws were timed to replace due-to-expire anti-terror laws enacted post 9-11, which enabled foreign suspects to be picked up without charge and jailed indefinitely without any rights to due process on the say-so of the home secretary.
Under the now-expired laws — savaged by human rights groups and Britain’s own law lords — as many as 14 foreigners, mostly Muslims, were confined either in Britain’s answer to Guantanamo Belmarsh prison or in the secure mental institution Broadmoor.
As soon as The Prevention of Terrorism Act hit the statutes, ten of the former Belmarsh and Broadmoor inmates were released on bail but before they could savor their newfound freedom, they were slapped with control orders, which variously include house arrest, electronic tagging, limited human contact and no access to telephones, other than to check in with the authorities, or the Internet.
The result was a shambles. One former Broadmoor detainee suffered a breakdown after being dumped in a virtually empty apartment. Another without arms was handed a telephone hotline to periodically report in, which wasn’t adapted to his disability; another was left without money or food for 17 hours, while the mother of one, recently arrived from his home country, was dragged from her son’s home because her name didn’t show up on a list of approved visitors.
Remember this is Britain we are talking about, a nation, which has always been justly proud of its legal system and human rights records. Remember, too, that Britain has never been attacked by terrorists — other than by its home grown IRA .
London’s outspoken Mayor Ken Livingstone isn’t falling for the propaganda. He suggests Britons are more likely to be victims of bird flu than terrorism.
So what is going on?
Perhaps recalling an incident during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq provides a clue. In early 2003, there were sudden reports that terrorists were planning to attack planes using missiles, and, as a result, hundreds of armed police and army tanks circled London’s Heathrow for several days, while totally ignoring the country’s other airports. In the event, there were no attacks and there never have been any since. But Britain’s tourism suffered a severe blow in consequence.
Naturally at the time the government said the security exercise had deterred the terrorists, which is nonsensical when one considers the attacks could always have been postponed or diverted to one of the unprotected airports — that is if such a dastardly plan had ever existed in the first place.
In reality, it is British Muslims, who are most affected by the new anti-terror laws. They already complain of being discriminated against by police during stop-and-search operations. Often their homes and cars are searched for no other reason than their visible faith, while many are disproportionately taken aside for interrogation at border points and airports. More than 35,000 British Muslims were searched last year without being informed of the reasons why.
The British minister responsible for counter-terrorism Hazel Blears has recently upheld this discriminatory policy, saying Muslims should accept as a “reality” they may be stopped and searched by the police more often than the rest of the public. “There is no getting away from it,” she said, adding, “The terrorist threat comes from people falsely hiding behind Islam.”
Chairman of the Islamic Human Rights Commission Massoud Shadjareh was outraged, saying: “She is demonizing and alienating our community. It is a legitimization for a backlash and for racists to have an onslaught on our community.”
In the final analysis, the terrorists have won without firing a shot in England’s green and not so pleasant land nowadays. The inherent freedoms once enjoyed by Britons are being eroded daily. It began with the placement of thousands of CC-TV cameras and soon the last remnants of their privacy will be gone when they are obliged to carry biometric identity cards, packed with personal information. It is my belief that the new laws are more about controlling the populace than combating terrorism, and ironically, they could well be responsible for triggering the very terrorist outcome they are ostensibly designed to prevent.