Community: Real Life

Suspicious minds


James Armstrong

James recently graduated in economics and politics and is training to be a chemistry teacher. He enjoys amateur dramatics and has acted in Rocky Horror. He loves pub quizzes and is a sucker for romantic fiction.

Is suspicion of guilt enough to detain a British citizen who is suspected of terrorism? James says 'No' and fears for our fundamental liberties.

Imagine a world in which 4.2 million cameras watch our every move. In which the DNA of 4.5 million citizens is held in the world's largest database. In which we can't express our opinions in case it causes offense to those around us. In which we are forced to carry ID cards to prove our rights, and in which a suspicion of guilt can lead to our arbitrary arrest and detention for 42 days, without trial.

This sounds like a scene from Orwell, and yet it is in fact a portrait of modern Britain under New Labour. Yet, it's not just this which causes my anger. Rather, it's the attitude of British citizens who have slowly allowed our liberties to fall into serious peril.

The latest in a string of illiberal decisions by this government was recently pushed through the House of Commons in a vote which was so tight, it relied on the votes of a small band of Irish MPs to win the day. The new bill will allow terror suspects to be locked up without trial for six weeks (42 days). It represents an appalling attack on our fundamental liberty to go about our lives without fear of arbitrary arrest and detention. It's a suspension of habeas corpus, and reverses the rights that we have enjoyed since the signing of Magna Carta almost 800 years ago.

Supporters of the bill claim it's a necessary measure to ensure our security in an age of terrorism, and 69% of the British public are convinced that 'in exceptional circumstances' we do need powers like these.

We are asked by supporters of the bill to think back to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 in New York and 7/7 in London and imagine that these attacks could have been stopped if only we had been more proactive. But are we really deluded enough to believe that there is anything that could have stopped so determined an enemy; and secondly, what exactly are we defending if we are so willing to throw away our fundamental liberties?

"Any law that singles out a minority group for special treatment under the law, goes against everything our legal system has been based on for centuries."

The second reason given in favour of this law is that it is that it's only 'terrorists' who have anything to fear, and not law-abiding citizens. But they would think that wouldn't they? Because it's not their brothers, sisters, sons and daughters who will be targeted by this legislation! The reality is that this kind of law doesn't affect the vast majority of the population because since the decline of terrorism from Northern Ireland, potential terrorist attacks now come almost exclusively from a small indigenous Muslim population: a fact which should make this legislation even more disturbing.

As a general rule any law that overtly or covertly singles out a minority group for special treatment under the law, goes against everything our legal system has been based on for centuries and everything it should be based on. In fact, it's exactly the kind of legislation which leads us down a path towards totalitarianism, which is something Winston Churchill understood better than anyone:

"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgement of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist."

The entire debate in this country has focused on how many days are 'enough' to ensure our safety and yet surely, the real question we should be asking is: should we be doing this at all? My answer is a resounding 'No'.

Angry? Submit a rant


Bookmark with:What are these?

Also on TheSite.org