The Civil Rights implications of the London bombs

[modeski]

Like many people on this board, I highly value individual freedom and civil rights, and see any weakening or threat to the same as extremely damaging and frightening.

One of the first thoughts to go through my head last Thursday was that Blair and co. would cynically seize on the opportunity presented by the bombings, to push through controversial legislation that would increase the power of the authorities, while taking away some of our freedoms. The USA did just that with the Patriot Act, and things like Guantanamo Bay, increased border security etc.

Our "friend" Charles Clarke, home secretary is very keen to get ISPs and telco's to record emails, SMS messages and mobile calls, and retain the information for up to three years. Of course, the logistics of such an operation are staggering - but then the echelon system and others have been operating for some years now. It seems that Clark is taking a more hard-line stance on these issues than Blair, who was keen to stress that the government would follow the current timetable.

For how long, though? In the immediate aftermath of the terrorist bombings, the government must be seen to be compassionate, stoic and focused on locating the perpetrators. To their credit, it seems that this has happened, as some arrests have been made, and Blair has urged people to remain calm and focused. That's not to say that, behind the scenes, they aren't working out how to capitalise from the tragedy that took place. I hope the people they arrested turn out to be guilty, or are let go if they are not.

The Prevention of Terrorism Act worries me, as it allows people to be detained without charge, or burden of evidence. More worrisome is the plan to introduce (this autumn) an offence of "acts preparatory to terrorism" - this could have far-reaching consequences in terms of search warrants, stop and seizure, and will no doubt be affected by the institutional racism which is still rife in this country.

I'm interested to hear other people's opinions on the liberty/legislation issue. Do you think it's worth allowing our electronic communications to be surveilled and stored; will it prevent terrorism? Will National ID cards be rushed through now, and have they suddenly become a valid idea?

Thoughts please!

[ringmasterrob]

Hmm, this is only a brief response due to time constraints but in my opinion National ID cards have most definitely not become a valid idea. Firstly there is the fact that the bombings appear to have been carried out by British Citizens, though this isn't to say they weren't assisted by foreign terrorists. Secondly Madrid already had ID cards before the bombings there and it didn't prevent them at all. In short I don’t believe that ID cards are a solution to the problem of terrorism, in fact I don’t even think they will prove an effective deterrent. The prevention of terrorism act worries me too, as does the idea of having electronic communications stored. I don’t see that it will strike a blow against terrorism, in fact by curbing our liberties and freedoms we are allowing the terrorists to alter our way of life which is exactly what they are trying to do. The best response to this attack, and I credit Blair for following this so far, is to be stoic and show whomever masterminded these attacks that we will not be moved by terrorism. The worst response would be to pass through draconian legislation akin to America’s patriot act and allow ourselves to be governed by fear and panic.

[Thanatos]

Quite right - except, Rob, that that's already happened. As a letter to the Independent so rightly put it on Saturday:

'I never cease to marvel at our Prime Minister's capacity for self-deception. "Terrorists will not change our way of life or our values," he says - but they already have!

We have killed and injured tens of thousands of innocent people in Afghanistan and Iraq; we are reducing the freedom to demonstrate; we detain people on suspicion; we are to have a central identity card database on which large amounts of information will be kept on each of us. Freedoms that we have had for a thousand years are being eroded.

If Blair truly wishes to give terrorists no credibility he should draw back from further construction of a police state. Unfortunately, I feel sure he will use these bombs as an excuse for more attacks on our civil liberties and the terrorist cowards will dance for joy.'

And now Clarke and co. are already burbling about the importance of taking action to defend our free, democratic society - by chipping away at it still further. All so-called anti-terror legislation passed since September 2001 should be repealed, all such proposed legislation (e.g. identity cards) binned.

[modeski]

thanatos said:

If Blair truly wishes to give terrorists no credibility he should draw back from further construction of a police state. Unfortunately, I feel sure he will use these bombs as an excuse for more attacks on our civil liberties and the terrorist cowards will dance for joy.'

And now Clarke and co. are already burbling about the importance of taking action to defend our free, democratic society - by chipping away at it still further. All so-called anti-terror legislation passed since September 2001 should be repealed, all such proposed legislation (e.g. identity cards) binned.

Spot on. I'm not sure what bothers me most: the government pushing through these policies with little or no debate, or that more people don't speak out against them. In fact, maybe there is so little debate because relativetely few people (present company excepted) express more than a passing interest.

But then, we're not talking about conceptually here - what the government does fundamentally affects our way of life. So why aren't more people getting angry about this? In my experience, far too many members of the general public will accept what is said to them without question, particularly in times like these. They are taught that it's bad to question = "You're either with us or against us". A very dangerous situation, which can only be changed by finding a way to engage the populous in informed debate. Of course, since this is contrary to what the government would want, it's up to us.

[ringmasterrob]

thanatos said:

All so-called anti-terror legislation passed since September 2001 should be repealed, all such proposed legislation (e.g. identity cards) binned.

Hear Hear!

[HStorm]

I don't despair at the ones who take no interest at all nearly so much as the ones who speak out in favour of anti-terror legislation and who, when challenged on the increased power the state will have over us, just say, "I don't give a toss about my civil liberties, I want to stay alive!"

By all means, it's a great idea to do things that can keep us alive, and if certain liberties do have to be curtailed somewhat to achieve this, what the hell, go for it.

But before I'd support any such changes I'd firstly need, in far clearer and much less generalised terms than we've been offered so far, an explanation for why each change is necessary and what it would achieve, and above all, what safeguards will be put in place to prevent abuse by those exercising the new laws.

And further, some changes I simply cannot condone under almost any circumstances. Introducing legislation that will allow the state, for instance, to arrest and hold people indefinitely and without trial would be too easy for a Home Secretary or Police chief to exploit and use in inappropriate circumstances e.g. to lock away someone just because they don't happen to like them very much.

I just couldn't bear to live in a society where being made to look guilty is the only thing that matters. In such a society, all that will differ from the anti-terrorism hysteria we have now is the object of our fears; everybody will spend their entire time staring over their shoulders at the police instead of regarding every passing stranger as a potential terrorist (or more likely perhaps, and even worse, they will live in fear of both). Whatever the case, a police force with enlarged powers will be far harder to resist than a small group of fanatical nutcases.

[Naselus]

thanatos said:

"Terrorists will not change our way of life or our values," he says - but they already have!
We have killed and injured tens of thousands of innocent people in Afghanistan and Iraq; we are reducing the freedom to demonstrate; we detain people on suspicion;

Could have sworn the British had spent most of the last three hundred years doing this sort of thing (admittedly, mainly in other countries). These ARE our traditional values.

We killed hundreds of thousands in Afghanistan, Iraq, India (especially). We gave colonial populations no right to demonstate in most cases. We locked up various country's leaders on suspicion of ruling sovereign nations without British permission... what's changed, exactly?

thanatos said:

we are to have a central identity card database on which large amounts of information will be kept on each of us.

Oh. THAT's what's changed. The only problem is that we're going to waste a lot of money on a system which the government and the protest groups agree won't boost security in the slightest. But if the system is so useless, in what way is it clamping down on our freedom? It's not. It's just a criminal waste of time and money.

[HStorm]

naselus said:

If the system is so useless, in what way is it clamping down on our freedom? It's not. It's just a criminal waste of time and money.

I'd argue that requiring a permit to exercise the privilege of walking up and down the street could be seen as a check on liberty. To be fair, it's not the side of the matter that bothers me that much, not nearly so much as the pointless, expensive futility of it that you mention, but it is still a restriction.

[HStorm]

At around 10am this morning, a man the police say they believe to be one of the failed suicide bombers from yesterday was gunned down in cold blood by armed officers from the metropolitan force.

It is a sign of the success of Islamic terrorism that they have led the British to start deploying hundreds of heavily armed police gunmen on patrols through the streets of London, the first time in history that the UK has been policed in such a way. That Blair cannot (or will not) see that his response to the bombings two weeks ago is exactly what he promised it would not be i.e. that the attacks would not change the British way of life, would be risible if it were not so frightening. It has long been, quite rightly, a source of pride in the British people that their nation has never needed heavily-armed forces walking the streets to maintain order.

Worse still, at the time of writing, 7:40pm, the identity of the man killed has still not been positively confirmed. That a man can be killed for "resisting arrest" is disturbing, but happening when his identity isn't even confirmed? I somehow doubt this will be the last such example we hear of in the months to come of what I warned of earlier, about new police powers being too easily abused.

Further, according to eyewitness reports, the police shot him five times, suggesting that the man's death was entirely intentional and even premeditated.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706913.stm

This business won't be brushed under the carpet of course, and nor should it, but I also doubt that there will be any repercussions for the police who opened fire on a man whose resistance to arrest appears only to have taken the form of running away.

If they really had to open fire on him, couldn't they have shot him in the leg or arm? Why did they need to shoot him five times, including at least twice in the head? Didn't blowing his brains out once do the trick?

[HStorm]

New 'anti-terrorism' measures are now apparently being considered by the Prime Minister. They are as follows; -

1. The Home Secretary should be allowed to consider deporting any foreigner involved in listed extremist centres and websites.
2. Justifying or glorifying terrorism anywhere to be made an offence.
3. Anyone from outside the country who has anything to do with terrorism automatically being barred asylum to the UK.
4. The police to be able to hold terror suspects for longer before pressing charges.
5. More control orders against British terror suspects.
6. Create a list of pro-violence peachers who will be kept out of the UK.

My thoughts on each proposal; -

1. In listed extremist centres (whatever those are supposed to be) might be okay, but on listed extremist websites? As any website owner can put practically anything they choose on it, that is bound to lead to false accusations being made left, right and centre.
2. As mentioned on the "Folly Of Understanding" poll earlier this week, the Government's definition of 'justification' is very doubtful indeed, and it appears to cover any dispassionate and unscathing attempt to explain the motivations behind an attack. While I would welcome an attempt to stop people from glorifying terrorism (of which there has actually been very little sign at all in this country since July 7th), this will probably also ban people from merely discussing it in any neutral, non-critical way as well. That is a restriction on freedom of expression, and even counter-educational.
3. As this stands, a foreign-born victim of an attack can be barred from entering the country, as well as an instigator. Such a decision can also be easily defended by simply claiming that there is evidence that they may be terrorists anyway, evidence that will probably not have to be made public.
4. My thoughts on this one are already well-recorded elsewhere.
5. My fear over this one is that once again there is an assumption of guilt until proven innocent. Why should someone who is merely suspected of terror involvement be subject to a control order?
6. Fair enough, provided it is reliably demonstrated that the preachers are guilty.

[Naselus]

hstorm said:

1. The Home Secretary should be allowed to consider deporting any foreigner involved in listed extremist centres and websites..

Spendid. How many of the London bombers were British born? All of them, you say? Good to see that this is sensible legislation based on what's recently happened, and isn't just a xenophobic piece of clap-trap with the sole aim of allowing Charlie to deport anyone he's held illegally in prison for too long on the basis of being foriegn. Oh, wait, no...

hstorm said:

2. Justifying or glorifying terrorism anywhere to be made an offence.

Right, so discussing motivation for terrorist actrion (justification) can be prevented completely, which even makes some of the threads on this very website contain illegal information. Because, after all, we're all dangerous debating extremists.

And define 'Glorifying'. Does mentioning on the News, for example, that a suicide bomber killed twenty people in Iraq 'glorify' his act? He get s on the TV.

hstorm said:

3. Anyone from outside the country who has anything to do with terrorism automatically being barred asylum to the UK.

As HStorm says, perhaps clarifying this a little more to read 'anyone who has been PROVEN to SUPPORT or BE A MEMBER OF any terrorist organisation should be barred asylum to the UK'. But really, should we be stopping such a large proportion of the American government from seeking asylum here? It's only a matter of time before the warcrimes trials start, after all.

hstorm said:

4. The police to be able to hold terror suspects for longer before pressing charges.

And still be able to deport them once we find they're completely and totally innocent of anything other than blatant foreignness. Perhaps allowing terror suspects to sue the police more often for racism charges would balance this one out?

hstorm said:

5. More control orders against British terror suspects.

More control over the British Government in it's choice of American Imperialist wars to join would again be a better idea. Afghanistan yes, Iraq no. Bad Government! Sit!

hstorm said:

6. Create a list of pro-violence peachers who will be kept out of the UK.

Ye-es. Then let's have a list of anti-war liberals to keep out as well, they really let the side down. And a list of foriegner in general. Actually, let's just make that a list of foriegn COUNTRIES. And let's have a list of, well, let's just make a list of everyone who's not a fifth-generation british white anglo-saxon protestant C of E racist petty-minded fascist. And then let's make a governemt out of anyone not on the list.

[HStorm]

Today has undoubtedly been the most dramatic day in the House of Commons since the 2003 debate on whether to go to war against Iraq, perhaps even the most dramatic since New Labour came to power.

After a particularly hectic and fierce Prime Minister's Questions, in which Tony Blair was clearly bracing himself for the worst news, the afternoon debate and vote on the Government's latest Bill of anti-terror legislation fell to a dramatic defeat by over thirty votes. It was Blair's first ever defeat in the House of Commons as Prime Minister, and with such huge opposition to him now growing in confidence and daring, his authority is now in great peril. He personally and loudly added his own stamp of approval to the Bill, and so the failure of his backbenchers to show any faith in it suggests that they have lost faith in him as well.

The key issue was the extra powers given to police to hold suspects without trial for up to ninety days. A compromise of twenty-eight days - still double the current limit - has been opted for in principle. The full extension was rejected on the basis that the police had offered no proof other than their own say-so that such a huge term of unchecked incarceration was necessary.

Those of us who like the idea of being allowed to walk up and down the street can breathe a sigh of relief - although speaking personally even the modified extension leaves me slightly uneasy.

[Naselus]

Well, today Tony lost his first vote in the house, but this merely marks the next step in his downfall. This is the TWENTIETH back-bench revolt since May, the first successful one, and also marks this government as the most discontented since the end of World War 2. No Prime Minister since Chamberlain has faced so much hostility from within his own ranks in Parliament. While Blair continues to cling to the reins, this must surely be seen as a blatant message to his foes within the Labour party that he can be beaten, and he can be replaced against his will. Especially when you consider even his wife keep speaking out against his policies.

Gordon! Please, Gordon, if you can hear me, rise up and cast off the shackles of your oppression! Take Old Tone out and shotgun him! While I can still write this without being arrested for treason and conspiracy to commit Regicide!

[Thanatos]

What makes you think Gordon would be any better?

[HStorm]

He won't have eight years of presidential self-glorification behind him, and he'll only have a majority of about sixty, one that has shown itself to be increasingly unstable, so he won't have the chance to develop the same arrogance that Blair has.

Having said all that, Brown is in favour of far greater police powers, so his succession would be no reason for complacency.

[Naselus]

Because Tony's become a power-mad despot, and curently I think Mickey Mouse would do better. Even with his Walt Disney-fascisto political ideas.

I doubt Gordon would bring the labour party back to the left, but I think he would have more respect for the democratic process. Blair's become so used to having an overwhelming majority he thinks he'll get away with anything.... Brown's not likely to push the boat so far.

[HStorm]

Anyone fancy a laugh at barefaced political hypocrisy?

Tony Blair has responded to yesterday's vote but claiming that backbenchers are 'out-of-touch' with public opinion. Now this may be true (but then I sincerely believe public opinion is, in this case, misguided) but this is Tony Blair speaking...?

[modeski]

hstorm said:

Anyone fancy a laugh at barefaced political hypocrisy?

Tony Blair has responded to yesterday's vote but claiming that backbenchers are 'out-of-touch' with public opinion. Now this may be true (but then I sincerely believe public opinion is, in this case, misguided) but this is Tony Blair speaking...?

Come on now, no one likes a good laugh more than I do, but you went too far that time.

Tony Blair continues to represent majority public opinion on all issues, especially the new terror legislation. He has always been the true voice of the people. I will not hear allegations to the contrary. For you to defile his good name and unimpeachable record will not stand, sir.