I’ve been debating internment and the Terrorism Act with my councillor, George Ashcroft, over at his place. Despite being a Conswervative, he supports the detention without trial of “terrorism” suspects for a month and a half.
I’ve pointed out some serious flaws in the Terrorism Act such:
- Section 3 says that if you use a gun to endanger a persons life then that’s an act of terrorism whether it’s for what we would consider terrorism or not.
- Section 54 says that if you give or receive weapons or explosives training then it’s an act of terrorism whether it’s for legitimate purposes (such as a job) or not.
- Section 58 says that holding or publishing any information that may be useful to a terrorist such as a newspaper telling people the Queen is going on a trip to Wonkoville tomorrow is an act of terrorism.
It’s a shitty, shitty piece of legislation and defines terrorism so loosely that it would be quite easy to abuse it and lock someone up for a month and a half without charge on terrorism charges even if they’re not a terrorist.
I’ve pointed this out to George thinking that he’d see sense, that his distrust of socialists and knowledge of history and politics (he’s studying for a degree in it) would make him realise that you can’t just give such sweeping, illiberal powers to the British government when they can quite easily be abused.
I asked him if he thought it would be a legitimate use of the Terrorism Act to treat an armed robber as a terrorist and lock them up for a month and a half and to my surprise, he does. The threat of terrorism is apparently so severe that we have to give up our rights, freedoms and liberty to protect us from the terrorists who want to deprive us of our rights, freedoms and liberty. We’re so at risk from terrorists that we have to submit ourselves to increasingly draconian legislation which is written so loosely and left so open to interpretation that it can be twisted to make a terrorist out of almost anyone.
The trouble is, once you establish a precedent that the British government can take away your rights, freedoms and liberty when they decide that it’s expedient to do so, they are no longer rights – they are then privileges that you can have for as long as the British government says. Those fundamental rights are no longer fundamental, no longer sacrosanct but a footnote in party policy. I’ve tried to get him to understand this but all he does is give the same spiel about how there’s a masked terrorist in everyone’s airing cupboard and a suicide bomber in every school just waiting for the message from Osama Bin Laden (a slight exaggeration).
I’ll leave you with a quote from Benjamin Franklin which has been completely lost on Goerge:
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety
Technorati Tags: Conswervatives, Internment, Terrorism, Police State
No seriously, I’ve seen them. One of them is hiding under my bed. And we’ve got one living in a kitchen cupboard.
Couldn’t agree more. I am reminded of the dialogue in ‘A Man For All Seasons’ where Thomas Moore is arguing the case for civil liberty.
Swap the word ‘Devil’ for ‘Terrorist’ and you get pretty much the same tenet.
I did a quick Google and found the dialogue here: http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001101.php
There’s probably other sources, but this was the first I came across, and is in an article that appears to be talking about very much the same sort of prinicples.
You talk about armed robbers and terrorists, then in the same breath talk about “our” freedoms and liberties as though the “liberties” of an armed robber and a terrorist are the same “liberties” that the innocent majority should enjoy.
I asked a pal of mine today what he thought of David Davis. Not a particularly political pal but a taxi driver from Brookside. He said “What a farce. Never mind locking ’em up for 42 days, they want stringin’ up. Who gives a fuck about the their rights?”.
I spoke to another voter, a known Conservative and he said “The fucking Davis. Lock ’em up and throw away the pissin’ key”.
Dozens of people I have spoken to have said the same. Not one has said a word about civil liberty or Habeas Corpus. When I mentioned Habeas Corpus one enquired “What the fuck is that?”
Do we condemn these people for their apparent ignorance or should we not, as representative politicians, reflect the populist view of the voting public? I ask this question quite apart from the very detailed case in favour of the fight against terrorism made on my Blog?
I know. I Know. Civil liberty…Habeas Corpus…freedom…innocent until proven guilty… The Magna Carta of Virgin 1215….on and on and on. YET NOT ONE WORD ABOUT THE INNOCENT VICTIMS OF TERRORISM AND HOW THE INNOCENT MAY BE PROTECTED IN FUTURE. NOT A WORD FROM DAVIS. NOT A WORD FROM WONKO. THE ONLY WORD HAS BEEN FROM KELVIN FUCKING MCKENZIE. I am so upset I am tempted to go up there and fight Davis myself! TOUGH ON TERROR – TOUGH ON THE CAUSES OF TERROR – WITH GEORGE IT’S POSSIBLE!
I agree completely wonko and feel that you have hit the nail fairly and squarely on the head.
George is rattling on and is probably quoting from people who don’t turn out to vote. If George advised thee people that this piece of legislation is so loosely written, that some desk jockey could interpret it to mean that, that particular Taxi Driver could be considered to be a terrorist, then maybe he’d want things tightened up a bit, things need to be explained to people in the simplest form.
It is a piece of legislation, that is open to abuse and will without any doubt be abused.
George tries to sit on one side of the fence, then the other whilst trying to sit directly on it.
It all depends on what the government at the time decides what a terrorist is. If you take a look here – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist – you can see just how hard it is to define exactly what a terrorist is.
Besides, the victims of terrorism aren’t just the people who get blown up by militants – When the government can introduce laws that restrict or erode our liberty, we are all the innocent victims of terrorism.
“It is a piece of legislation, that is open to abuse and will without any doubt be abused”
I have never read rubbish like it. ANY piece of legislation is open to abuse. Do you therefore advocate that we should have no laws?
“that some desk jockey could interpret it to mean that, that particular Taxi Driver could be considered to be a terrorist”
These are people upon whose judgments our civilisation rests. All the talk about freedom yet here John Franklyn reduces our legislators, law-enforcement agencies and those at the fore of the fight against terrorism to the status of a “desk jockey”.
“things need to be explained to people in the simplest form”.
The people are thick then. That must be the end of argument.
And YOU talk about democracy???
George, you and likes of you are quickly turning Europe into the second USSR. I’m saying that as a guy from the former, first, original USSR. You may succesfully fool naive UK electorate, but not somebody with my backgorund for I can clearly see that all your words about terrorism is just a smoke screen. You and likes of you are sick to death with democracy and can’t wait to see it abolished. You hate accountability and elections. Your real aim is an unrestricted power over people. Your real aim is the totalitarian empire. Unfortunately for Europe, your plan is proceeding well.
“Besides, the victims of terrorism aren’t just the people who get blown up by militants – When the government can introduce laws that restrict or erode our liberty, we are all the innocent victims of terrorism.”
So, it is all the governments fault then. Not the terrorist that caused the problem in the first place. I have said it before and I will say it all again.
“Conservatives and other advocates of civil liberty must not lose sight of the fact that freedoms are a means to ensuring the health and well being of citizens and are NOT necessarily ends in and of themselves. ”
“In any case, civil liberties are already limited not only at the point when physical violence is actually being perpetrated but also when such violence is being incited and organised. Democracies have a right and a duty to protect themselves in advance against those who would seek to destroy their freedoms and our very civilisation itself. The curtailment of civil liberty may not be the ideal solution to a situation not of our making but it is not that bad either, particularly when it applies exclusively to the most reprehensible and odious individuals within society – and provided that the democratic credentials and legitimacy of national governments is upheld and maintained.”
“You may succesfully fool naive UK electorate, but not somebody with my backgorund for I can clearly see that all your words about terrorism is just a smoke screen.”
Oh, so there isn’t really a terror threat then?
“Your real aim is an unrestricted power over people. Your real aim is the totalitarian empire. Unfortunately for Europe, your plan is proceeding well.”
I suppose it’s all a conspiracy? Straight from the pages of David Ike. Next we will learn that the Queen is a reptilian and that George W. Bush has a taste for human blood.
Wonko, are these people serious or have you dared them to write this stuff?
George – Look at the bigger picture.
Your taxi driver friend said
“What a farce. Never mind locking ‘em up for 42 days, they want stringin’ up. Who gives a fuck about the their rights?”
Now I might not agree with his sentiments but he has a perfect right to say it. However what he advocates is, under current British law, murder and incitement to violence for political means – in other words terrorism.
You might argue that I’m nit picking and you would be right, but that hasn’t stopped the government in the recent past.
Part of the SOCPA law was designed to prevent people from demonstrating in Parliament Square without prior permission. Maya Evans was arrested and fined for reading out the names of those killed in the Iraq war by the Cenotaph. Another woman was threatened with arrest because she was having a picnic in Parliament Square and had a cake with the word “peace” iced on it – just how nit-picky do you have to be?
What happens if the government decides to nit-pick over terrorism?
Mugabe is using terror to hold on to power yet he is using terror laws to prevent his political opponents from exercising their democratic rights
You and I have different ideas of what a terrorist is and that’s fine, that’s democracy. Just be careful because one day one of our views might be viewed as incitement to terrorism.
From Sky News: “Cleric Abu Qatada, who has been described as Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man in Europe, is to be released on bail.
He will be required to wear an electronic tag and remain in his home for 22 hours a day.”
We shouldn’t forget his human should we?
human rights that is
“So, it is all the governments fault then. Not the terrorist that caused the problem in the first place.”
Er no, that’s not what I meant and I think you know that. I’m not saying that you shouldn’t try to stop people from killing each other, that’s a no brainer. What I am saying is don’t create laws and then twist them to suit other more nefarious purposes.
“From Sky News: “Cleric Abu Qatada, who has been described as Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man in Europe, is to be released on bail.
He will be required to wear an electronic tag and remain in his home for 22 hours a day.”
We shouldn’t forget his human (right) should we?”
Personally I don’t think that guy should be out and about but the reason he is has more to do with the balls-up that’s been made of his prosecution up till now.
Qatada’s been convicted of something has he?
He was sentenced in Jordan (in absentia) to life imprisonment and has been in custody in the uk since 2005.
“Oh, so there isn’t really a terror threat then?”
George, you are deliberately and nastily messing with the facts. There IS a terror threat. But we are talking about different matter – the law that is designed to give the government power to make a terrorist out of everybody it (dis)likes. There is a difference, isn’t it?
And I repeat – you are using terrorism as an excuse for imposing tyranny upon people. If terrorism didn’t exist, it surely must’ve been invented!
And could you please answer the simple question? You are advocating that law saying that is serves the purpose of combating terrorism. OK, but how are you going to judge that it is about time to abolish it? How do you imagine a victory over terrorism? Will it be occupation of Iran? Or Bin Laden will have to sign surrender and hand it over to the White house? Answer please!
Cool, sounds like a candidate for deportation. If he’s committed terrorism abroad he can be convicted of terrorism here. If he hasn’t been convicted here then I can only assume that the evidence used in Jordan was either obtained via torture and therefore can’t legally be used or isn’t sound enough for a conviction here.
Not quite sure how that strengthens George’s argument.
They’re all serious I guess … well, apart from Rob who I assume was joking when he said that he’d got a terrorist under his bed but you never know.
George;
“Conservatives and other advocates of civil liberty must not lose sight of the fact that freedoms are a means to ensuring the health and well being of citizens and are NOT necessarily ends in and of themselves. ”
I am sorry, George, but this is where I part company with you.
In 1940 the people of these islands could have easily obtained security, health and well being; All they had to do was surrender and join the German plan for co-prosperity in collaboration with the other nations of occupied Europe; they would have kept their own parliament, passed their own laws. No-one would have anything to worry about as long as they were innocent. And not Jewish either.
The European Leader would not have been elected, of course. Neither the Foreign Minister. The armed forces would have been under a command which could deploy them without reference to any of the governments. A paramilitary police force would be available to repress dissent, with lethal force if necessary.
England, like Poland and Czechoslovakia, would have been split into regions, each run by non-elected officials; a reasonable translation of the German might work out as ‘Regional Development Authority’.
However Winston Churchill (remember him, George?) took a different view. He thought that no sacrifice would be too great to maintain our freedoms, which we would never surrender. Lots of people agreed with him, for example, my father. I have his letters to prove it.
That is why David Davis commands my support and admiration. He stands on principle. He’s probably very lonely in Parliament these days.
“Now I might not agree with his sentiments but he has a perfect right to say it. However what he advocates is, under current British law, murder and incitement to violence for political means – in other words terrorism.”
I think my taxi driver pal is of the old school and might be advocate of the death penalty. I don’t agree with him myself. However, whilst the language of the individuals I have quoted may not be very subtle, it does express the sentiment of a large body of public opinion – that we must not be soft on terror. Everyone I have spoken to about this subject – in the real world and away from the internet blogs – has expressed, to a greater or lesser degree, precisely the same sentiment.
Only an hour ago someone called me on the phone to say that he has been reading my blog and how the libertarian argument, when applied to the fight against terrorism, is wholly inadequate.
It all reminds of the candidature of the 10-term congressman Ron Paul for the Republican presidential nomination in America. His position on a raft of issues was, in many ways, closer to the conservative and libertarian ideal than say that of John Mccain. Yet Paul was utterly rejected by the mainstream of Republican voters in respect of the presidential nomination. In the post 9/11 world, Paul’s overtly libertarian stance was not seen as viable or credible in the eyes of most mainstream conservatives. This in a country whose liberties are enshrined in a written constitution.
Conservatives in America appear to appreciate the threat they face from terrorism to a greater degree than some of their British counterparts. I understand that. 9/11 was the first major terror attack of a foreign origin to take place within her shores. Britain had faced Irish Republican terrorism for decades. It is right that we adopt a considered and cautious response to these challenges.
But the suggestion that we should not invoke every availiable means at our disposal when confronting the contemporary terrorist threat – including recourse to legislation – is in my view, erroneous in the extreme.
Our liberties are enshrined in a written constitution, it’s just not written down in one document but then neither is it in America. Magna Carta and Habeas Corpus are both part of the American constitution but there is only one Magna Carta and Habeas Corpus and it’s shared between all of us that have it as part of our common law.
Taking away our civil liberties in the name of protecting our civil liberties is just ridiculous.
Max asks a very good question:
“That is why David Davis commands my support and admiration. He stands on principle. He’s probably very lonely in Parliament these days.”
I do not question that Davis is a man of principle and that he has taken a stand for what he believes. And I agree with him on much of his manifesto and in any other circumstance I would concur entirely with him. But on the question of fighting terror and it’s method we appear to part company.
“However Winston Churchill (remember him, George?) took a different view. He thought that no sacrifice would be too great to maintain our freedoms, which we would never surrender.”
Indeed. Do you remember Neville Chamberlain and “peace in our time”? What a false peace it was. The false peace of appeasement. The wages of that appeasement was a world war and the loss of 60 million lives. In these modern times, do we really want the world to regress back to that? Or do we not have at our disposal the means and methods of both dealing and defeating the threat posed by terrorism, by Iran and other state-sponsors of terrorism?
It will take courage and the circumstances we face are not ideal. It is a struggle that we did not solicit. But we must be realistic about this. We face a merciless opponent that would abolish our liberties at a stroke. A terrorist cares not one jot about human freedom or about the value and dignity of human life.
It is time that we began to consider these truisms in place of concern over the “rights” of terrorists. Most people are not terrorists. Most people have not suddenly become terrorists as a result of the Terrorism Act. Most people are not going to be detained for 42 days without charge. That a handfull of innocent people might fall into the orbit of the Terrorism Act and have their liberty inconvinienced for a short time is indeed regrettable. It is not ideal. The Terrorism Act is not an “ideal” piece of legislation. We are not living in an ideal world and the paramount concern must be the freedom of individuals to go about their lawful and legitimate affairs unfettered by the threat of terrorism. I am in favour of any measure that effectively facilitates this – including the Terrorism Act and a detention beyond 42 days for terror suspects if necessary.
Yet under the Terrorism Act so many people are.
There’s that crystal ball again. How do you know that it won’t become the norm? You’re advocating locking up people who aren’t terrorists up for a month and a half and your party opposes it.
Not regrettable – unconstitutional, unlawful and unacceptable.
By replacing it with the threat of arbitrary detention by any power mad dictator that manages to insinuate their way into Westminster? I don’t trust the Goblin King with this power, you may do but how can you judge whether a future Prime Minister will use the law for the purpose for which it’s intended?
I am not in favour of arbitrary detention. The detention of suspects under Anti-Terror legislation must have a clear purpose – that of fighting or preventing terrorism.
You cannot judge in totality whether any future Prime-Minister will use the law for the purpose for which it was intended. However, I vote Conservative and not Labour because I believe that on the balance of probabilities a Conservative government is better than a Labour government. Better on civil liberty and better on fighting terror.
By the way, much of the Conservative Party and conservative thinking more generally is not in favour of resisting the 42 day detention of terror suspects. Indeed, Anne Widdecombe voted with the government. So too did the UKIP defector. Likewise the DUP. I myself would have voted against the government on the night because I believe Gordon Brown to have shown weakness in the way he appeased his rear guard and by the shabby way in which Labour whips enforced party discipline. They should not have recanted from the position of 90 days if that is what they truely believed and should have made a credible case in it’s favour. By compromise Brown took the easy route – the route that leads to appeasement, surrender and betrayal.
Maybe this is the new fox hunting, that is a political topic of no real merit or worthwhile use that takes up acres of political time and keeps the chattering classes busy but away from important subjects and topics?
If someone is away for even 21 days, there will be lots of clamour and noise, unless of course we are going down the ‘everyone hates me’ road and think that the media will suppress the reporting of demos outside Paddington Green.
I really do think this is an empty subject of no great worth that is being used to distract us from more worthwhile things.
Look at how many replies this subject has got in comparison with the Irish Constitutional vote. If the government wanted this in they would probably put it up lie the anti terrorist bill that was renewed every year but for this they dont take care, it is a topic that gets us all talking and keeps us distracted
Using the threat of terrorism to justify human rights abuses is a distraction is it?
God, if that’s the distraction I dread to think what the real problems are.
George;
If there was one policy that was really popular in the 1930’s, it was appeasement. Supported by all political parties, the press and the churches, your taxi driver would have been with Mr Chamberlain all the way.
The flaw in my own argument concerning the war, which I now see on reflection, was that known or perceived Nazi sympathisers, including the parents of the current chairman of the FIA, were interned without charge indefinitely, but they were able to challenge their detentions in the courts.
The safeguards built into the current legislation, and the extreme reluctance of our courts to dance to the government’s tune, may offer sufficient protection in any individual case to counteract its breach of the principles of liberty which we have built up over the centuries. I, personally, would put Abu Qatada on the next plane to Jordan without hesitation, but our courts have justifiably decided to protect his rights against the knee-jerk reactions of people like me. Similarly, in the case of Ms. Malik, the so-called ‘lyrical terrorist’, I was very uncomfortable with the thought that someone could be sent to prison for writing poetry, no matter how wrong-headed, or even inflammatory, and I see that the courts agree!
Malik’s case, however, focusses on what Wonko and I see as the fundamental flaw in this and other recent legislation, which is the huge breadth of the definition of ‘terrorism’. A young woman standing on the steps of the Cenotaph, reading out the names of those killed in Iraq is in no conceivable sense a terrorist, yet she was arrested as such. Even poor old Walter Wolfgang, shuffling into the Brighton Conference Centre in his carpet slippers to express dissent was arrested under counter-terrorism legislation. I trust the courts. I do not trust the police. Police will always want more powers; they might see it as a way of making their job easier, but it ends up as a Police State, none the less.
Brown refuses to put up a candidate to debate the issues David Davis is raising. Is it because he knows that he would lose, or is it that Labour can’t afford it? Either way he’s bottled it. Again.
“Brown refuses to put up a candidate to debate the issues David Davis is raising. Is it because he knows that he would lose, or is it that Labour can’t afford it? Either way he’s bottled it. Again”.
I think you are quite right. I am suspicious that the government’s motives in pressing for 42 days has less to do with the fight against terrorism and is more a matter of resources. It may be that the Police have said to Brown “look we can foght terror but you’ve got to give us more money OR an extension of detention without charge.”
I think the only police force that asked for it was the Met and that’s because Ian Bliar is a Liebour plant.
George, how do you plan to withdraw the act after the war on terror has been won?
Probably it was only the the Met who asked for it as it is only the met who do that sort of thing.
Those doctors who tried to blow up Glasgow airport were taken down to paddington green.
The beauty of our democratic system is that Acts of Parliament can be repealed.
What, like the Lisbon Treaty? That binds successive parliaments – another unconstitutional act by the traitors in Westminster.
I think what Max meant was how do you determine when the threat is over and the act can be repealed? Do you envisage it ever being repealed or staying in force forever until it’s superceded by even more illiberal, unconstitutional curtailment of our rights and liberties?