I haven’t blogged for 10days or so, largely because I’ve been so busy with responsibilities outside parliament, both work and domestic. It’s a constant juggle to arrange the various strands of my life so that they dovetail into each other seamlessly. I know my ‘busyness’ is of my own making and I have lots of help but still I end up chasing my tail. I really need a wife! (My husband says he is one by the way!)
I have been trying to follow the counter-terrorism bill arguments quite closely. I am always deeply suspicious if there is an overwhelming consensus in the Lords that something is wrong with a piece of legislation. Sometimes its a matter of opposition politicking; sometimes the House gets behind a pressure group (my colleague medics are very good at stirring them up); sometimes the legislation is innovative and it’s going to be difficult to know how it will turn out… the Offender Managment Service was of that sort. So I’ve wanted to listen and read about the counter terrorism provisions and listen to the government’s point of view and the rationale for the provisions. I went to listen to the meeting held by the Joint Committee on Human Rights too although as their opositional stance has been well outlined in their recent reports there was nothing very new.
I’ve come to a complete blank on reasons to support the Government and am deeply puzzled now why they are so adamant about it. I cannot see the arguments at all for extending pre-charge detention, not one case has been expounded where it clearly would have made a difference. And why are we introducing a new sort of inquest without a jury, which might serve one case I gather, when we are about to have a much overdue new bill revising the whole coronial system in the new autumn parliament? More experienced politicians than me may know the answer but I am dismayed. When our new crossbench friend Lady Manningham Buller delivered her pithy and devastating ‘no’ speech on 42days I think there were many silent cheers (and a lot of audible here-here ‘s).
No-one wants to downplay the risk of terrorism, even the very thought of minimising its impact is thought to be politically suicidal. The revulsion caused by the way innocent people are maimed and killed by terrorists is abhorrently shocking and for those reasons special. But in the past 5years there have been quite a small number of people (I think it’s about 600 killed in the UK). Every year in England & Wales 3000 die in road accidents, many of those deaths readily preventable, 800 or so are murdered, usually by someone close to them and perhaps 5000 people die of hospital acquired infections. We do not introduce draconian legislation to adress these issues because of the impact it would have on the rest of us. And for the same reason we shouldn’t introduce repressive measure to reduce the risk of terrorism. Intelligence gathering, the cross analysis of multiple pieces of information and good judgment on when to intervene are far more likely to secure our safety than locking suspects up for 42days without charge. But please someone tell me I’m wrong? I’ve got the whole recess to ponder over more information and I may well change my mind.
I couldn’t agree more. I heartened to hear that there opposition in the House to the bill, and delighted to be able to read what Baroness Manningham-Buller said here:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?gid=2008-07-08a.647.0
Thank you for taking the time to write about it.
The limit of up to 42 days without charge is now a matter of principle for the government because they cannot say for sure that this would be enough should the contingency be exercised.
What we do not hear in any of our counter terrorism legislation is a commitment to revisit it on an annual basis, always, with a view to repealing it if the perceived threat has gone. At least this would provide us with some reassurance that our core values were being suspended only on a temporary basis.
This is not happening and it is intended that the legislation remain in place. Why?
Terrorists have finite agendas that in the course of time become irrelevant, redundant or resolved politically. However, anarchists and yes they do exist, have no such limitations. They are a natural by-product of democracy because they have the freedom to grow and prosper. Their aim is to mindlessly destroy order and civilisation.
So, is the government dealing with terrorists, anarchists or both?
Perhaps they just don’t know. In any respect it is the politics of fear and I want no part of it. Personally, I am not afraid of terrorism but equally so I would not like to be part of one of their atrocities, neither would I like to be the victim of a knife attack by a youngster. Which is the more probable?
What I would wish to have, is the courage and fortitude of everyday ordinary Iraqis who get on with their lives as best and as happily as they can not in fear of terrorism but a calm acceptance of it. They are simply amazing!
My goodness, someone dared to say it. Well done!
I choose not to worry about terrorism because I know I’m so fantastically unlikely to be affected by it that any concern on my part would be disproportionate. I know the Government doesn’t have the luxury of responding this in way, but their actions to date have been far from proportionate, and much collateral damage has been done to our civil liberties and our society by their blinkered political viewpoint. I look forward to the day when we can have a reasonable, objective, evidence-based and proportionate debate about security in this country, but I fear I will have to wait for the next General Election before this becomes possible.
I’m curious about your source for the figure of 600 people having been killed in the UK in the last 5 years. That seems a lot higher than the 50-odd who died on 7/7. Which other incidents are you counting? Or did you mean UK citizens worldwide?
I’ll begin by stating I am against the 42 day detention piece within the Bill.
However, to answer your question on issues to think over. Accidental deaths are just that – accidents. Ordinary murders tend to be committed by the insane, criminals, or by family members, and very few are targeted. Hospital acquired deaths happen through ignorance and bad management. Clearly, I don’t condone any of the above, but only a tiny minority of premature deaths are the result of premeditated actions.
I’ve grown up with hijackings, bombings, and shooting of innocent civilians in the UK and whilst abroad in Ireland, France and Spain. It is highly unlikely that I will ever travel to the the Levant, Asia, or South America. I probably will never go to a big event such as the London Olympics, and may not even visit London again. For whatever reason, I called off a trip to Harrods restaurant, the day the shop was bombed back in the early 80’s.
Millions of people smoke knowing they are likely to damage themselves in the future, ditto drug and alcohol abuse, driving cars, etc. But they are our choice; suicide bombers are outside our choice. There seems to be an inevitability that there will be dirty bombs and other manifestations of major death and destruction.
It maybe that we would all feel a lot safer if the media would stop reporting the ‘inevitability’ on a daily basis and get the intelligence spooks up to speed.
It is sobering and somewhat… startling? to see the figures of people killed in the UK in the last 5 years from terrorist attacks. Our anti-terrorism bills in the United States have become more and more appalling in the last 7 years, and as far as I’m aware we haven’t had any deaths due to terrorism since 2001. Yet our legislators keep signing away more of our civil liberties in the name of “homeland security.”
I appreciate your sentiment regarding the threat of terrorism and its statistical impact on society. Thank you for your objective viewpoint.