The Government’s decision to drop the 42 days was right in view of the extensive opposition. I hope such legislation never becomes necessary but modern terrorism is an ever more serious problem.
When the Government announced their decision not to proceed with 42 days a number of opposition members complained that the Home Secretary had suggested they were soft on terrorism.
I don’t think it is a good idea to suggest that opponents of Bills of this type are soft on terrorism – I have a vested interest in saying so. In the 1980’s we had the Prevention of Terrorism Act which was far more draconian than the recent proposals. A politician, the Home Secretary, had the power to exclude a UK citizen from one part of the UK to another. It was, in effect, internal exile. There was no judicial oversight. There were also far less safeguards in the old Act then in the recent Bill.
I use to oppose the PTA until very significant changes were made. Both the opposition parties in the House of Commons would regularly accuse me of being soft on terrorism. So when they started complaining about it in the Lords yesterday I had to smile. Lord King of Bridgwater was particularly indignant and I was provoked into a response as he had been one of the principle offenders in the 1980’s! I thought gentle humour was the best approach and suggested that the complainants were really making a belated apology to me all these years later! Maybe there is some justice in politics after all!
http://pubs1.tso.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldhansrd/text/81014-0003.htm
The (presumably internal) TSO link doesn’t work on the internet – may I humbly recommend TheyWorkForYou’s page, which lets you link directly to the correct speech and has a photo of the noble Lord, at: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2008-10-14a.598.4#g605.3 🙂
“Soft on terrorism” is one of those mealy-mouthed, Shutupicrat arguments which makes me want to oppose bills even more.
It’s entirely reasonable, and supported by much evidence, to suppose that there is a limit to government competence and that there should therefore be a limit to government power. The idea that handing over the keys to our civil rights will automatically guarantee us security, rather than simply transferring the instrument of our insecurity from rogue actors to the giant and cumbersome mechanisms of state is ludicrous and has no place in sensible discourse. The “soft on terrorism” argument, like the “patriotism” argument, is the refuge of scoundrels who cannot make decent arguments because they are staking out an indecent position. It seeks to align sensible and reasonable agnotisticism about government claims and reluctance to expand the powers of central government and law enforcement agencies with criminal behaviour and activities. It is designed to rhetorically set up a tribal identity of “The Good Guys” vs “Those Who Would Do Us Harm” and imply that only the government represents the moral Us. It is tremendously insulting to your audience to expect them to buy that.
But, I suppose these arguments don’t necessarily apply in the murky waters of politics, so perhaps “if you insult someone, it may come back to bite you and make you look like a hypocritical numpty” is more germane for politicians.
“modern terrorism is an ever more serious problem”
Is it? I don’t mean to be deliberately controversial, but I hear this from politicians all of the time and have never seen any concrete arguments to back it up.
Terrorism is not a new phenomenon and has been going on, in this country, for hundreds of years. There have always been, and will always be, people willing to resort to such tactics to further their goals or highlight their grievances.
I believe that pulling out the line that we face more dangerous people than we have ever seen before is just the kind of fear-mongering that encourages draconian legislation. If their purpose is to create terror, then it appears we are rushing to help them.
Lest anyone think I too am “soft” on terrorism: I work in the City every day and am acutely aware of the dangers. I know two people who were maimed in the 7/7 tube bombings.
However, let us treat these “terrorists” for what they are: criminals. Yes, dangerous, but also often times pathetic or ludicrous. Making a big fuss about how serious the situation is doesn’t help anyone except perhaps the perpetrators themselves, as it lends excitement to their cause.
As with most violent crime, statistics generally show the world to be a decreasingly dangerous place. It is our fear that increases constantly. Politicians do a disservice to us all by stoking that.
[As an aside: I firmly believe that what the Police need is not more time to hold suspects while they sift evidence, but better resources to do the sifting. I believe that if the Police had anywhere near the resources for targeting criminals that a modern global corporation has for targeting customers, we’d be seeing much better results.]
I can’t think of anything more terrifying than combining the resources of a corporation to sift through data on individuals with a government’s immense capacity to collect vast swathes of personal information. Not even a radical Islamist in a hijacked airliner.
Terrorists have attacked a handful of times in this country compared to the 80s, when the police are, as Lord Soley has stated, not allowed near the draconian levels of control that they had during our own homegrown terrorist crisis. What “better results” do you reasonably expect to achieve? Either there aren’t as many terrorists, the terrorists that do exist aren’t as competent, or the police are doing a sterling job with the resources they already have. Or perhaps all three, with notable exceptions to the latter case in the cases of Charles de Menzes, Rizwaan Sabir, and other gross abuses of power that we are unaware of.
The evidence that Islamic Fundamentalism is a greater existential threat than anything we’ve seen, and that it requires Brave New Powers to stop it, is so scarce I’m truly amazed that people are buying it. It’s like nobody remembers the constant threat of nuclear annihiliation during the Cold War.
I am sympathetic to the lines of argument here. There are problems however. Jonathan, it is true that we are much safer and live longer than previous generations but fear still stalks the minds of many!
One of the problems about modern terrorism is that it uses the media very effectively and generates world publicity – in that way it raises the fear level outside the immediate area of its operations. It also encourages hatred (race, religion etc) and is often designed to do so.
The nature of the available weapons is more troubling than past terrorism. The anarchist with the hand held bomb of 19th century vintage is very different from the attack on the Japanese underground by a strange religious sect using chemicals.
The public expect politicians to “stop” such attacks but that is not easy. The constant struggle between civil liberties and the power of the police to stop such attacks is an on going debate. Alas it won’t go away.
Lord Soley, “the public”, in their fuzzy add-em-up-and-divide-by-fifty-million sense, believe many things that are neither true nor a sound basis for legislation. Appreciating that one of the downsides of democracy, particularly a democracy in an era of instant mass media saturation, is that government becomes increasingly reactionary, it still strikes me as a poor argument in favour of increasing government power, and in fact is a very good one against it.
If the government is increasingly beholden to the irrational fears of the mob, then its powers should be restricted rather than increased. If it cannot be relied upon to sensibly and maturely analyse the real risks and respond with sober competence, then it cannot be relied upon at all.