The government's argument goes something like this:
Terrorism is complicated, the police has asked us for this, it will help to keepWhile these may all sound like compelling reasons none stand up to much scrutiny.
us safe, it is popular with the electorate.
The fact that terrorism uses modern technology does not in it self prove the need for long periods of pre-charge detention. It is just as complicated for the Australians, Spanish, Americans etc. all of whom have suffered at the hands of terrorist and none of whom have detention times as long as we currently have.
I am sure the police and security services would love to have much longer to do their work, wouldn't we all. Their requests shouldn't be ignored but ultimately they are not tasked with balancing their powers with civil liberties. Politicians are.
The "it will keep us safe" argument is a very worrying line to follow. Taken to its natural conclusion it could be argued that locking up every Muslim in the UK would keep us safe. Just in case they turned into a terrorist!
Finally, the popularity of an idea at a specific point in time can be a poor benchmark for good laws. History is littered with truly evil acts that were popular at the time.
Terrorist win by terrorising, this manifests itself in knee jerk actions, throwing away ancient liberties and rushing to pass poorly thought through laws. They lose when we have the courage to defend the fundamentals freedoms of our society.
Posts
4 comments:
"!Muslim in the UK would keep us safe. Just in case they turned into a terrorist!"
The problem with that being???????
It worked in WW2!! Britain suffered no attacks on it;s mainland that originated from it's mainland! It would be nice to sleep safe in our beds again
There are so many caveats within this legislation that I suspect police will never use these powers. So what is the point in the complete waste of time and the undermining of our civil liberties?
With a new criminal justice bill every year the clear aim, like another answer that was 42, is not for the calculation of this piece of legislation but for the one to come after it.
The next piece of legislation will erode most of the protections built into the bill and will receive little criticism from the Labour backbenches - especially in the run up to a general election.
And in answer to anonymous above (as if he/she deserves any response), I sleep safer in my bed knowing that the police are not going to lock me up simply because of my religion, race, or political views. I had hoped that this country had stopped doing that 400 years ago, but I can see that you would prefer to live in Zimbabwe or Burma, well off you go!
No I'd prefer to live in the country I was born in, and grew up in, as did the several hundred generations of my family before me. And I'd hope that others would do the same!
James McGrath has helped to explain my comment. If it is right to tell a group of British people "Well, let them go if they don’t like it here", then people who have been British for several hundred generations should take the same advice. In a democracy you do not get extra points for long dead relatives who may have lived on these shores centuries ago.
And just out of interest would anonymous like to tell us if his ancestors were the Catholic 'terrorists' or the Reformation 'terrorists'? Or has your family always followed the powers that be (French, German, Scottish, Dutch) and persecuted the hoards of treasonous fellow indigenous peoples?
In WW2, while British people of German Jewish extraction were detained at His Majesty's Pleasure, the Royal family (a known German family with Nazi sympathisers and appeasers) were allowed to continue to rule the country. But then I don't think that most people slept safe in their beds during WW2, even with internment.
Post a Comment