the dialectic of draconianism and terrorism

["Ian Murray" <seamus2001@xxxxxxxx>]

[the Independent]
Stand firm against this tide of intolerance and resist the clamour for
draconian laws
21 September 2001

These are dangerous times. The danger comes not only from terrorism or
from the risks of military action, although the latter are real enough
and more frightening than in conflicts - from Kosovo to Sierra Leone -
in which British forces have lately been engaged. The historical
precedents for any land war in Afghanistan are discouraging, and the
consequences for the nuclear-armed rivalry between Pakistan and India
remain unforeseeable.

However, other - more insidious - dangers lurk, which need to be
guarded against. The ravening fury of public opinion after terrorist
outrages has all too often prompted legislators to make bad laws.
Internment without trial, the Prevention of Terrorism Act, the
legislation rushed through after the Omagh bomb in 1998: all proved at
best irrelevant, at worst counter-productive in the fight against
terrorism.

Many parts of the conservative press in Britain are engaged in the
systematic and irresponsible distortion of public opinion in order to
put pressure on the Home Secretary to rush through authoritarian
legislation. Of course, there is a new willingness to fight terrorism
by all available means, but the response to the attack on the World
Trade Centre has provided an excuse for many to exercise their
illiberal prejudices. Civil liberties - and the Human Rights Act in
particular - have especially been focused upon; while even more
reprehensibly in evidence in some outpourings of the right-wing press
is outright xenophobia.

Human rights and xenophobia are linked by the theme of being "soft" on
unfounded claims for refugee status. A picture is painted of Britain,
in its generous liberalism, foolishly providing a sanctuary for
extremists, West-haters and terrorist supporters. This is a travesty,
and leads some to the illogical position of complaining about refugees
from Afghanistan as if they were potential terrorists, when these are
people fleeing the Taliban theocracy which is harbouring the prime
terror suspect, Osama bin Laden.

Oliver Letwin, making a disappointing start as shadow Home Secretary,
seems to think that respecting the human rights of asylum-seekers
"compromises" national security because it makes it difficult to
deport those suspected of involvement with terrorism. This is
illogical as well as illiberal. If there is any evidence of terrorist
activity, deportation is the wrong response; it simply shifts the
problem elsewhere.

Meanwhile, David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, to his credit, is
showing himself well aware of the dangers of responses driven by hot
emotion rather than cool thought. At the meeting of European interior
ministers yesterday, he repeatedly emphasised respect for human rights
law. Apart from his pledge to consider identity cards (he should
consider the idea and reject it), he seemed to recognise that the need
is not for new laws but for speedier enforcement of existing ones.

Chris Patten, the European commissioner, should also be commended for
his pre-emptive strike against the inevitable American pressure for
the extradition of terrorist suspects. The European Union should
maintain its principled opposition to the death penalty. Whatever
their crime, people should not be extradited to be executed.

None of this is to argue for a purist or impossible defence of civil
liberties. It may be necessary to limit some of the freedoms which
people would hope to enjoy in an ideal world. In particular, effective
defence against terrorism requires some restriction on freedom of
movement and intrusive searching of persons and luggage.

Equally, freedom of speech is not absolute. Some of the more
ridiculous pronouncements teased out of various London-based political
extremists of a self-styled "Islamic" ideology cross the boundary of
incitements to violence or racial hatred. Mr Blunkett is right to say
that prosecution should be considered. The only issue is whether it is
better to ignore such insignificant figures or to offer them more
credibility through imprisonment.

So far, despite their belligerent rhetoric, the Prime Minister and
Home Secretary have acted with restraint. Tony Blair has been careful
to insist that Islam as a religion is not responsible for terrorism,
while Mr Blunkett is robust on human rights. But dangerous signs of
ignorance and intolerance are feeding a backlash against Muslims
around the country, just as they are on a greater scale in the United
States. For anyone complacent about the depth of ignorance in the US,
where Sikhs have been mistaken for Muslims, we should recall that in
this country a mob has mistaken a paediatrician for a paedophile.

The pressure, artificially inflated by a right-wing press, for
draconian laws that would allow anyone suspected of complicity in
terrorism without evidence to be locked up, must be resisted. Giving
in will not help to fight terrorism. Giving in will facilitate the
oppression of ethnic minorities, those who hold Arab names or
unpopular opinions, and genuine refugees. Giving in will undermine the
values in whose name the fight against terrorism must be carried on.