Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Easier to diminish our freedoms than to root out the terrorist threat

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-05 06:41 AM
Original message
Easier to diminish our freedoms than to root out the terrorist threat
A thoughtful piece from the editor of the News Statesman in the UK independent

Some of the proposals seem to me uncontroversial. It is a manifest flouting of the spirit of international relations to delay giving France (yes, we are talking about France, not Saudi Arabia) custody of one of its most wanted men. It is clearly sensible to strike deals with countries that have, to put it politely, a less developed commitment to democracy, to ensure that anyone extradited is not tortured or killed. There can be no guarantees, self-evidently, but agreements can always be revoked. The right to refuse asylum for those convicted of terrorism is more complicated - the old adage "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" comes to mind - but again definitions can be made. Improving integration is surely a given. Creating a list of foreign preachers to be banned is something other Western countries do, so why not the UK?

Some measures, however, are far more problematic. On the practical side, how on earth can Islamic bookshops and cultural centres be closed without further inflaming passions? In any case, how many police can speak Arabic well enough to differentiate one book from another? We know from pre-9/11 and pre-7/7 that our intelligence penetration is not what it might be. Websites are one thing, but a shop? One can already picture riot police breaking down doors. As for deportations of those "fostering hatred or advocating and justifying violence", how do you define them? Did not Cherie Blair herself try to explain in a speech why some Palestinians felt the need to blow themselves up? Explain? Justify? Good luck to the parliamentary draughtsmen and the judges.

In any case, does the banning of an organisation not play into the hands of those who use it for extremist ends? For that reason, as well as for free speech, the British National Party has not been outlawed. Move Hizb ut-Tahrir and al-Muhajiroun underground and it might be even harder to keep track of their most dangerous elements.

In the long term, the most significant change signalled by Blair was his plan to amend human rights legislation. The incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into British law was one of the first and most cheering acts of the 1997 Labour government. How different those times were.

http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article304231.ece
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC