British Human Rights Watchdog Questions 42-day Terror Law
The government's own human rights watchdog threatened last night to launch a legal challenge to Labour's plan to introduce a law that would let police detain terror suspects without charge for 42 days.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission says the key part of the counter-terrorism bill goes against human rights law and may breach the Race Relations Act.
As the home secretary, Jacqui Smith, renewed her appeal to Labour backbenchers to support the measure - amid growing international criticism - the EHRC prepared to brief MPs before the bill's second reading in the Commons tomorrow. The commission makes clear it will mount a legal challenge if the 42-day limit wins parliamentary backing.
"If adopted, we may seek to use our legal powers to challenge the lawfulness of the provisions and to establish clear legal principles on the use of pre-trial detention," it says in a briefing note to MPs.
The threat of a legal challenge from the EHRC, which has powers to take judicial review on legislation it considers may be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights, is another setback to a government determined to increase the time terrorism suspects can be held without charge from 28 to 42 days.
Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Noam Chomsky and the American Civil Liberties Union have led an international outcry against the plan, which is opposed at home by the Tories and Liberal Democrats.
The government receives a further blow today when Lord Dear, the former chief inspector of constabulary, says a change in law would be a "propaganda coup" for al-Qaida. In a Guardian article, Dear writes that every chief constable he has spoken to regards the change as unnecessary.
Dear writes: "Make no mistake, extending pre-charge detention would most certainly be a propaganda coup for al-Qaida and its ilk. When I was an undergraduate reading law at university in the 60s, every self-respecting student had a poster of Che Guevara on their wall and knew something of the writings of [Herbert] Marcuse. Both of those terrorist luminaries said repeatedly that the best course for a terrorist was to provoke a government to overreact to a threat by eroding civil liberties, increasing executive powers and diminishing due process by the denial of justice."
The deep unease about the new measures was underlined by the EHRC. Set up last October under the chairman Trevor Phillips, it has specific power to take legal action over potential breaches of the Race Relations Act. The commission says it accepts that circumstances might arise which make an increase in the 28 day limit on pre-charge detention helpful to the police in obtaining evidence but this should not be at the expense of fundamental human rights.
It has told the Home Office that a "positive and compelling case" must be made before the maximum limit on pre-charge detention is raised, given its potential impact on liberty, the likelihood of its disproportionate impact on the Muslim community, and the risk of operational error.
"We consider that despite being restricted to particular and specific contingencies, the provisions set out by the Home Office are unlikely to meet threshold tests of public interest, justification or fairness," the commission adds.
It says the proposed safeguard of parliamentary scrutiny of each order will be meaningless without giving MPs detailed information on each suspect. Yet that would raise constitutional issues.
The commission says the proposed change also raises "very difficult issues" under race equality laws as it is being established to deal with a particular religious and racial minority. The EHRC believes it carries a high risk of damaging community relations, as Muslims are more likely to be regarded with suspicion.
The government is expected to win a Commons majority tomorrow for the bill's second reading. But Smith faces the prospect of defeat when detailed votes are held on the 42 days issue at the report stage in May after the local elections.
She said yesterday she believed the 42-day extension would be passed. But she told the BBC: "I hope parliamentarians will take their responsibility seriously to give those that we task with keeping us safe from terrorism the tools that we need to do it. I need to make the argument to parliament. As home secretary my responsibility is to do what I believe ... it is necessary to protect this country from the serious, sustained, and in some ways growing threat from international terrorism."
Smith stressed that the government was only taking a precautionary "reserve power" to increase the maximum period for detention without charge to be used in the exceptional circumstances of the country facing multiple terror plots.
© 2008 The Guardian
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
11 Comments so far
Show AllThe UK has, like France have an enormous number of Muslims living there. There has always been tension between the Pakistanis and the indigenous British. But the law has always protected the Pakistanis and still does and on occasions this fact has been taken advantage of by the immigrants.
So over the years a resentment has built up and came to a head when the bombs went off in London. The Government have been forced by public pressure to reign in the few who cause trouble but it will be difficult in Nanny Europe where discipline is a naughty word.
Britain has been dealing with terrorists or freedom fighters depending on your point of view for many years during the failing Empire years, so we do know something of the subject.
The big problem is the police force who are probably the worst force in the entire world so the government feel that once the suspects have been caught they need to hold on or the police will lose thenm again.
"As home secretary my responsibility is to do what I believe … it is necessary to protect this country from the serious, sustained, and in some ways growing threat from international terrorism."
Yes, madame secretary, with every escalation of the faux "war on terror" the threat of terrorism grows. She needs some basic elementary psycholgy lessons, you know, like I hit you, you hit me back, so I get a stick and whack you, then you get a rock and bash me, then....
And here we thought it was just 'mericans that were out of their minds.
"Because as things currently stand, how can we tell for certain that all crimes are being policed/monitored equally?"
Public displays such as, Clinton's, Spitzers, etc etc etc have showed that is not the case. (I'm not commenting on the moral standing of adultery or the fact that people in public office shouldn't be held to a higher standing... just saying that the average guy isn't going to get a federal prosecution team on him for sleeping with willing, of age, hookers)
Re: Chicago. Check out this article:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/education/829637,security030608.article
They couch total information awareness (Homeland Security function, interestingly -- is Posse Comitatus now dead also?) in terms of safety obviously.
But the article concludes with a complete misnomer, ""People know they're being watched," Duncan said. "Folks know that, if they do something crazy, the world is gonna see it."
The world is NOT going to see it. Unknown people in unknown locations may see it. And what they see that reaches the light of day -- and what is never released -- is their whim. If these security cameras were all open to public observation, i.e. anyone could login with his computer and monitor any camera, then the extreme asymmetry would at least be somewhat balanced.
Because as things currently stand, how can we tell for certain that all crimes are being policed/monitored equally?
The problem with the total information society, of course, is the asymmetry of who gets to surveil and who gets surveilled. Many/most of the government powers outlined in the US Constitution had corresponding citizen counterweights to them (right to assemble, freedom of speech, freedom from warrantless search & siezure, Article V, etc.).
We may also turn to the Magna Carta. The implications are very clear -- the king is not above the law.
So if it's ok for the government to snoop, apparently it's okay for everyone? One can buy all sorts of eavesdropping equipment on the internet. What's the legality of its usage?
It has told the Home Office that a "positive and compelling case" must be made
The Guardian is behaving like the US corporate media, failing to report in detail the arguments being made by the right to erode the public interests.
The public has only limited time/energy to invest in overseeing public policy and the failure by the media to provide the key information builds apathy and cynicism toward the civic responsibility of citizens.
In the example above, a large chunk of the article should be dedicated to the lack of a compelling case for extending the detainment period. This lack of a compelling case and the implied dysfunction/immorality of the right wing approach/ideology are the central issue. The Guardian has buried it in a pile of garbage.
Jacqui Smith's shrill rereading of Bush's GWoT expositions are becoming tiresome. No-one believes this crap any more except apparently Smith, Gordon Brown and the rest of his cabinet.
If the UK can't keep this one off the law books, it's about time to restore the monarchy.
And you know what...the UK is the test ground for the "Continent"...they went TOTAL surviellance Society...so are we..Been on a BUS IN CHICAGO LATELY....WOW! C-A-M-E-R-A-S....everywhere...practically watching every rider..and these are people doing the right thing..taking mass transit..like a SAUDI FINANCED OPERATION such as Al Qaed can't afford THEIR OWN BUS...PLANE..ETC..if NARCO TRAFFICERS CAN BUY A PLANE...SO CAN....ANYONE..
SO...here we go with essentially...simple..DETENTION as a means of.."Punishment" and there's more to this "law" as well..for example..you CANNOT QUESTION WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE PERSON WHO HAS BEEN DISSAPEARED...I KID YOU NOT...IT WOULD BE A CRIME UNDER THIS LAW, TO ASK THE WHEREABOUTS OF A DISSAPEARED PERSON...SO WHAT IS THE FAMILY TO DO IF THE MAIN BREADWINNER HAS...VANISHED...FOR A MONTH AND A HALF????????
Finally..I have to say..THIS IS WHY THE BRITISH REALLY HAVE LOST THEIR..MINDS..BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, THEIR ABILITY TO COMMENT, COMPLAIN, RATIONALIZE, DEBATE, OR EVEN..FRANKLY....DISLIKE..WHAT IS HAPPENING IN ALMOST ANY OTHER NATION, BUT ESPECIALLY OUR AMERICA...THEY ARE REALLY THE FIRST TECHNO-FASCIST, FRIENDLY FASCIST WESTERN NATION...THEY ARE THE FIRST..THEY HAVE ALMOST NO ACTUAL 'RIGHTS" AND THEY ARE LITTERALLY BEING WATCHED 24/7/365..FROM MULTIPLE ANGLES..AND SO..THEY HAVE NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT WHAT IS GOING ON IN AMERICA..PERIOD....FIX YOUR OWN FASCISM BEFORE COMPLAINING ABOUT OURS...
British Soldiers are complicit in torture and murder in Iraq, AEGIS is one of the worlds most VICIOUS "Corporate Mercenary providers"...they are WAY BIGGER THAN BLACKWATER...Blackwater, in comparison to AEGIS..could be called..BACKWATER...you dig?
SO...Brits...WAKE UP AND SMELL THE DARJEELING! YOU ARE GOING FIRST INTO THE LONG NIGHT...WHEN THE BRITS REVOLT AGAINST THIS KIND OF THING...THE AMERICANS MAY FOLLOW...
To say terrorism is not a threat is the definition of naivety, however the suspension of habius corpus is an egregious assault on freedom, regardless of whether it is here in the US or in the UK.
Both administrations would have an easier time gathering support from libertaians and freedom loving individuals in general, if they kept their demands in the ballpark of reality. There is no reason, under any circumstance, to suspend such a basic right - the right to know why you are being held, the ability to defend yourself in a court of law, and your right to face your accuser.
These tactics are Orwellian at best, and should have the full weight of liberty minded individuals criticism.
-James
www.thepoliticus.org
"...the best course for a terrorist was to provoke a government to overreact to a threat by eroding civil liberties, increasing executive powers and diminishing due process by the denial of justice."
Someone running things in the US should'a been reading up on Che Guevara and Herbert Marcuse! Then again - maybe they did.
7-7 changed everything...
They are learning from us...