Blair Offers Draconian Terror Laws

Prime Minister Tony Blair is a highly accomplished politician. He has created a right of center Labour Party out of an old socialist one, and has been so effective in stealing the Conservative Party’s policies that the Tories are trying to choose their fourth leader since John Major lost the 1997 general election. He is committed to ends and doesn’t care much about ideological means. This has allowed him to adopt policies that may benefit the British underclass despite their non-socialist content. However, it also means he has a blind spot about civil liberties, as his new proposals on fighting terrorism show.

Since Britain lacks a written constitution (although the EU rules about Human Rights and the Universal Declarations of the same help) the liberties that the Brits ramble on about are open to parliamentary tampering. Since parliament is sovereign (rather than the sovereign being sovereign), it can do just about anything it likes without the British courts tossing out an abominable law because it is unconstitutional. This means there is no check on Mr. Blair.

Some of his proposals are infringements on civil liberties that one might expect to face during wartime. As the Guardian reported, “The bill includes new offences of making preparations for a terrorist act, distributing terrorist publications and undertaking terrorist training, and also aims to tackle extremist preachers who glorify or encourage terrorism.” Existing conspiracy, weapons possession and reckless endangerment laws cover the preparations end of things. Distributing terrorist publications hinges on the word “terrorist” – would the BBC get in trouble for posting the recently captured Al Zarqawi letter on its site as a matter of public record? Undertaking terrorist training is meaningless; terrorist training is special forces training -- it is the intent that makes it a problem. As for the preachers, glorifying or encouraging terror again is covered by conspiracy and endangerment laws.

However, those are niggling little details compared to the 90-day period Mr. Blair wants for terror suspects before they must be charged. Under current law, the police may hold a suspect for 14 days before bringing charges. Ninety days cannot be seen as anything but a jail sentence without a charge. There are cases in the UK where 90 days is the sentence for assaulting a police officer. Except in these cases, one gets not only charges, but legal representation and a trial.

The Home Office says this longer period is necessary because the police need extra time to investigate terrorism suspicions. And the law currently requires the police to cease their questioning after the 14-day detainment currently permitted passes. Maybe the police do need extra time, but wouldn’t it be better to extend the amount of time the police can question someone (with an attorney present of course) rather than create a jail-term without trial precedent in law?

And is the idea to create more terrorists or fewer? Anthony McIntyre would know what the effect of this is going to be; he’s a former member of the IRA. He called the proposed legislation “counter-productive” because it would alienate British Muslims. He said, “There used to be a saying [in Northern Ireland] that in English society it was, ‘innocent until proved Irish,’ and I think something similar is about to happen to the Muslim community.” This is what comes of politicians believing the ends justify the means – they follow methods that make their ends unattainable.

© Copyright 2005 by The Kensington Review, J. Myhre, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent.
Produced using Fedora Linux.


Home