.Why we must be fair as well as vigilant
GLOBALISATION, as we are painfully learning, is not just an economic and cultural process: it also internationalises conflict and terror. We live in an era when implacable hatreds convulsing Beirut and Basra can provoke a chain reaction which destabilises Walthamstow and High Wycombe and is fully capable of reaching the streets of Scotland.
Many of us have become anaesthetised to violence in the Middle East. Of course we are still shocked by news footage of casualties of violence, but there is a perceived normality about the profoundly abnormal conditions prevailing in Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan. Violence, actual or potential, on our own doorstep is a different matter, and last week's events in Britain were a stark reminder of the enduring tensions between Islamic fundamentalism and the West, of the global outreach of that confrontation and the possibility that Britain could become a battlefield at any time, as happened on 7/7.
That atrocity, which claimed 52 lives, was the yardstick invoked by stony-faced ministers John Reid and Douglas Alexander when they appeared on television last Thursday morning to declare the latest alert the biggest emergency since then.
Without in any way pre-judging possible criminal proceedings, the details that have emerged so far suggest that the ministers - and more importantly, the security services and police - acted properly and promptly to deal with that danger. If confirmed, this will restore much-needed confidence after the tragic shooting of Jean-Charles de Menezes and the Forest Gate fiasco. Overall, there have been more than 1,000 arrests under the Terrorism Act 2000 since 9/11. Of those, only 158 people have faced charges and there have been only a handful of convictions. Nor did the police do themselves any favours by using the act to remove Walter Wolfgang from the 2005 Labour Party conference. It has never been applied in Scotland, even at the height of security concern during the G8 summit. The public will judge last week's action by one straightforward criterion: will it prevent or only delay foreign and home-grown terrorists from operating in Britain?
We now understand that ministers, in fact, wanted to end the "critical" level of alert as soon as possible, in the interests of the economy and to ease the impact on the travelling public, but the security services held out for a longer period of optimum alert. Again, that was the right decision: in matters of life and death it is better to be safe than sorry.
As we reveal today, ministers would also like to use the latest national security alert to revisit their proposal to extend the period suspects can be held in custody to 90 days. This is the power they unsuccessfully sought last year when the measure was defeated in Parliament and they had to settle for a limit of 28 days. It remains controversial and far less straightforward than ministers would have us believe. Is their return to the attack on this issue mere opportunism, reflecting the pique of a government that cannot bear to be defied, or do they have a legitimate case?
There is always a temptation, in the wake of a major alarm, to jump on the bandwagon and support more Draconian measures. Malignant forces have declared war on our open society, after all, and, in such an emergency, there may be a genuine case for very limited and strictly monitored increases in police powers. But we must beware: fear engenders intolerance and a willingness to suspend normal democratic safeguards; such emotions do not necessarily inspire good legislation.
There are very significant implications for civil liberties and - as already noted - the past record of the authorities in successfully identifying guilty parties does not inspire confidence. That is why, before any law is passed, there must again be a wide-ranging debate, examining all the arguments. If that points to a need for increased custodial powers, then it must be massively ring-fenced with safeguards, such as a panel of judges sitting to determine the acceptability or otherwise of every application for extended custody brought by the Home Secretary.
So much for the home front. But, as we have already acknowledged, the terror that threatens us at home is an extension of conflict abroad. This weekend sees a sliver of hope in the Middle East, with the adoption of a UN resolution for a ceasefire in Lebanon. But Lebanese ceasefires ran into the hundreds during the civil war there in the 1970s and 1980s, so there is no guarantee this will bring anything resembling peace. The likelihood is that Hezbollah may claim some kind of victory, see its credibility hugely enhanced in the Muslim world, regroup and resume hostilities with the backing of Iran and Syria.
Meanwhile, that war, and more especially the parallel conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan in which Britain is directly engaged, are being used to foment alienation among Muslims in Britain. A recent opinion poll showed 13% of British Muslims regard the Tube bombers of July 7 as martyrs. That is deeply ominous. We need to launch a major effort to reconcile our Islamic community with mainstream Britain, reminding them of the positive aspects of our society that, presumably, attracted they or their forebears to settle here.
Realism dictates there are troubled days ahead. We must keep up our guard, while doing everything we can to conserve hard-won liberties and conciliate minority communities. Not just vigilance, but also fairness and common sense are our friends in such difficult times.
Scotsman
Many of us have become anaesthetised to violence in the Middle East. Of course we are still shocked by news footage of casualties of violence, but there is a perceived normality about the profoundly abnormal conditions prevailing in Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan. Violence, actual or potential, on our own doorstep is a different matter, and last week's events in Britain were a stark reminder of the enduring tensions between Islamic fundamentalism and the West, of the global outreach of that confrontation and the possibility that Britain could become a battlefield at any time, as happened on 7/7.
That atrocity, which claimed 52 lives, was the yardstick invoked by stony-faced ministers John Reid and Douglas Alexander when they appeared on television last Thursday morning to declare the latest alert the biggest emergency since then.
Without in any way pre-judging possible criminal proceedings, the details that have emerged so far suggest that the ministers - and more importantly, the security services and police - acted properly and promptly to deal with that danger. If confirmed, this will restore much-needed confidence after the tragic shooting of Jean-Charles de Menezes and the Forest Gate fiasco. Overall, there have been more than 1,000 arrests under the Terrorism Act 2000 since 9/11. Of those, only 158 people have faced charges and there have been only a handful of convictions. Nor did the police do themselves any favours by using the act to remove Walter Wolfgang from the 2005 Labour Party conference. It has never been applied in Scotland, even at the height of security concern during the G8 summit. The public will judge last week's action by one straightforward criterion: will it prevent or only delay foreign and home-grown terrorists from operating in Britain?
We now understand that ministers, in fact, wanted to end the "critical" level of alert as soon as possible, in the interests of the economy and to ease the impact on the travelling public, but the security services held out for a longer period of optimum alert. Again, that was the right decision: in matters of life and death it is better to be safe than sorry.
As we reveal today, ministers would also like to use the latest national security alert to revisit their proposal to extend the period suspects can be held in custody to 90 days. This is the power they unsuccessfully sought last year when the measure was defeated in Parliament and they had to settle for a limit of 28 days. It remains controversial and far less straightforward than ministers would have us believe. Is their return to the attack on this issue mere opportunism, reflecting the pique of a government that cannot bear to be defied, or do they have a legitimate case?
There is always a temptation, in the wake of a major alarm, to jump on the bandwagon and support more Draconian measures. Malignant forces have declared war on our open society, after all, and, in such an emergency, there may be a genuine case for very limited and strictly monitored increases in police powers. But we must beware: fear engenders intolerance and a willingness to suspend normal democratic safeguards; such emotions do not necessarily inspire good legislation.
There are very significant implications for civil liberties and - as already noted - the past record of the authorities in successfully identifying guilty parties does not inspire confidence. That is why, before any law is passed, there must again be a wide-ranging debate, examining all the arguments. If that points to a need for increased custodial powers, then it must be massively ring-fenced with safeguards, such as a panel of judges sitting to determine the acceptability or otherwise of every application for extended custody brought by the Home Secretary.
So much for the home front. But, as we have already acknowledged, the terror that threatens us at home is an extension of conflict abroad. This weekend sees a sliver of hope in the Middle East, with the adoption of a UN resolution for a ceasefire in Lebanon. But Lebanese ceasefires ran into the hundreds during the civil war there in the 1970s and 1980s, so there is no guarantee this will bring anything resembling peace. The likelihood is that Hezbollah may claim some kind of victory, see its credibility hugely enhanced in the Muslim world, regroup and resume hostilities with the backing of Iran and Syria.
Meanwhile, that war, and more especially the parallel conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan in which Britain is directly engaged, are being used to foment alienation among Muslims in Britain. A recent opinion poll showed 13% of British Muslims regard the Tube bombers of July 7 as martyrs. That is deeply ominous. We need to launch a major effort to reconcile our Islamic community with mainstream Britain, reminding them of the positive aspects of our society that, presumably, attracted they or their forebears to settle here.
Realism dictates there are troubled days ahead. We must keep up our guard, while doing everything we can to conserve hard-won liberties and conciliate minority communities. Not just vigilance, but also fairness and common sense are our friends in such difficult times.
Scotsman
posted by madtom at 2:25 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home