Gordon Brown’s Government should recognize that sacrificing liberties in the fight against terrorism serves only to constitute a victory for the terrorists.
That ambivalence was epitomized by the statement he made on August 5 2005 – a month after the deadly terrorist attacks in London. The then prime Minister was unequivocal that a new approach to combating terrorism was required. “Let no one be in any doubt”, Blair said, “the rules of the game are changing.” The rules he had in mind were the right to a fair trial and an absolute ban on sending people to face torture and ill-treatment.
Recent events suggest that Gordon Brown is less conflicted about the discipline which comes with allowing human rights to be enforced directly in British courts. In a recent speech at Westminster University, the Prime Minister asserted that liberty occupies a central place in the British constitutional framework – one which cannot be set aside in the struggle against terrorism.
The speech followed an admission by Home Office counter-terrorism minister Tony McNulty at a fringe meeting at this year’s Labour Party conference in Bournemouth that Blair had got it wrong. When it comes to fighting terrorism, the minister said, “the rules of the game haven’t changed”. He added: “The more any response is rooted in our civil liberties and our human rights, with whatever slight tweaks at the top, the better.”
This new tone within the Government doesn’t simply reflect a desire to do the right thing. There is a growing recognition in Whitehall that the home-grown terrorist threat requires a long-term approach. That means much greater emphasis on the prevention of radicalization and recruitment within the Government’s overall counter-terrorism strategy. In the words of Gordon Brown, it’s about “winning the battle of hearts and minds.”
The Government is finally saying the right things about human rights and security. The question is whether it will have the courage of its convictions - in the face of understandable public fears about the threat and pressure from the police and security services to weaken the rules in the name of “flexibility” - to meet it.
Those who champion human rights are understandably cautious. In the wake of the September 11 attacks, the Government partially suspended the right to liberty in order to allow the indefinite detention without charge of foreign terrorism suspects, most of them at Belmarsh prison. When the Law Lords ruled that power unlawful on human rights grounds in December 2004, the Government introduced control orders imposing serious restrictions on liberty without due process. It also intensified efforts to deport foreign suspects at risk of torture based on flimsy promises of humane treatment. Following the July 2005 attacks, the British Government legislated a new overly broad “encouragement of terrorism” that undermines legitimate free expression. And it extended to 28 days the time suspects can be held in pre-charge detention.
These approaches don’t just violate human rights law. They are counterproductive. They undermine this country’s moral legitimacy at home and abroad, damaging its ability to win the battle of ideas that is central to long-term success in countering terrorism. They erode public trust in law enforcement and security services. And they alienate communities whose co-operation is critical in the fight against terrorism.
It is time for a new approach, consistent with the Government’s new emphasis on hearts and minds, and respecting liberty while fighting terrorism.
Step one is to take a hard look at the current counter-terrorism proposals likely to form a new terrorism bill. In particular, the Government should shelve its efforts to extend further the time that terrorism suspects can be detained without charge. Four options are being considered, but the clear favourite is a straightforward extension of the maximum time limit by which suspects must either be charged or released. Gordon Brown has spoken of a 56-day period.
The current 28 day maximum is by far the longest in the European Union. An extension is being sought in the absence of evidence that additional time is required. Instead, the process is described as legislating for the future.
The proposal carries a significant risk of unjust extended detention. More than half of those arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000 are released without charge. Were detention further extended, it is highly likely that terrorism suspects, most of them Muslims, would be held for extended periods and then released without charge.
The fact that those detained for more than 14 days are held at Belmarsh only adds to the damaging symbolism. As Lord Condon, the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, has warned, extended pre-charge detention risks playing “into the hands of the propagandists, who will encourage young men and women—to all other intents and purposes, they are good people—to be misguided, brainwashed and induced into acts of martyrdom.”
There are alternatives to extending pre-charge detention, including broadening the power of the police to question suspects after they are charged and relaxing the ban on intercept evidence. These options should be fully explored before contemplating a measure with such dramatic consequences for the right to liberty. And the Government should review its counter-terrorism laws and policies to ensure their compliance with human rights legislation, beginning with deportation with assurances, which put suspects at real risk of torture.
Those who commit terrorist atrocities often hope to provoke an over-reaction from governments - a departure from the fundamental values upon which civilised society rests. The Prime Minister recognised this in his Westminster University speech: “The very freedoms we have built up over generations are the freedoms terrorists most want to destroy.”
It is time for the Government, with the help of Parliament, to prove the terrorists wrong and demonstrate that our basic rights are not to be set aside in the name of countering terrorism here in Britain.
Benjamin Ward is associate director of the Europe and Central Asia division of Human Rights Watch.
