The UK Government has just passed the Prevention of Terrorism Act, a law permitting it to take a range of measures against foreign [Updated: all] terrorist suspects, including detaining them indefinitely without trial.
In the future, it is absolutely inevitable that there will be an Islamic terrorist attack in the UK. We live in a fallen world. “Such things must happen, but the end is still to come.” People will die. And the inevitable questions about prevention will be asked: Could we have done more? Should we have done more?
The answers to those questions must be the same whether we ask them now or we ask them then, and it is quite possible that they should be Yes – and No. There are always more actions a government can take to protect the citizens of a country, but it is not always right to take them.
Our Prime Minister said, in an angry exchange in the House of Commons, that he was protecting the citizens while trying to preserve civil liberties. This is wrongheaded. He should be preserving civil liberties while trying to protect the citizens. And this should be our attitude now and in the future – we should do everything within our power to prevent acts of terrorism, without being terrified into imposing unacceptable restrictions on our citizenry. I applaud the courage of politicians who stand up for these rights, at the risk of being cheaply blamed when the inevitable attack occurs.
So what can and must be said to the grieving families of the victims? We feel for your loss, and we thank you for your sacrifice. We will do everything in our power to hunt down and punish those responsible. But we could not have done more to keep this country safe, if we also wanted to keep it free.
Remember though, that this expires after a year. At the end of that year, they’re gonna have to come up with properly thought out legislation, not this emergency stuff. Something that Tony Blair fought hard against.
Why is it inevitable that there will be a terrorist attack here? Terrorism has steadily declined, off the top of my head there have been not one act of terrorism in england in the last few years.
“Terrorism” isn’t one big amorphous blob. IRA terrorism has declined, it’s true, but Islamic terrorism is just getting started. The other three countries with military presences in Iraq have already been targetted, and I’m sure we’re near the top of the list.
It may be that the security services can continue to detect and foil plots indefinitely. But they have to get it right every time, and the terrorists only have to get it right once. Given that most observers suggest the “war on terror” is going to last for a number of generations, the chances of us escaping entirely unscathed are IMO very small.
In this day and age, it’s not the terrorists that I’m afraid of… it’s our governments that truly scare me.
Somehow, I don’t think it’s supposed to be that way.
man, you’re so (kind of :)) right.
“.. including detaining them indefinitely without trial…”
Man, how stupid this is? _WITHOUT_ trial – This practically gives the goverment officially the power to get rid of andybody they don’t like for whatever reason. They basically throw away a basic right many people have fighted for just a few (dozen, whatever..) years ago.
Thanks god I don’t live in the UK but in a country where the people’s rights are still worth something ;)
It’s not detention in the sense of prison imprisonment – that’s the legislation which has just expired. It’s for “control orders”, or virtual house arrest. That’s as I understand it anyway.
There is judicial review of the decision too.
Changing the subject, how come the comments system doesn’t tell you in advance that your email address is required?
And why aren’t you warned that your email address will appear on the comments page?
I think you’re missing a crusial point: This act allows the UK government to detain foreign terrorist suspects. Therefor, this act will not allow the government to violate the civil rights of the UK citizens.
Amir:
Wrong, that’s the old one that just expired. The new one that just got passed applies to everyone, UK citizens included (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4212431.stm). Aren’t we lucky.
Re: decline of terrorism:
Not to mention the animal rights crowd, some of whom have been getting rather keen on the idea of terrorizing relatives of shareholders in medical research companies and the like. Not to mention the (hopefully slim) possibility of Something Else popping up without warning.
Andy:
The further good news being that we’ve probably got a general election before then. I would urge voters to bear this in mind when deciding where to put that “X” (I know I will)
The new legislation applies to all of us, regardless of nationality. This is supposed to make it compliant with the earlier House of Lords ruling (when sitting as a court, not as the upper house of the legislature) that the previous legislation was discriminatory, because it only applied to foreign nationals. It ignores the dim view the House of Lords ruling took of the “without trial” aspect of the previous legislation.
The new legislation will not expire after one year. The “concession” that Tony Blair granted is a verbal assurance that MPs will be allowed to look at it again in a years time. However if they don’t bother/run out of time/can’t agree on a new version, the current version stays on the statute book for all time.
Perhaps the government should employ a few IT types to explain the concept of least privilege – rather than simply granting the Home Secretary “root” access to everyone’s freedom.
-Bruce
“In the future, it is absolutely inevitable that there will be an Islamic terrorist attack in the UK.”
Prejudice.
I don’t know who’s responsible for your personal believings, random accusations, and general spreading of FUD showing up on planet.mozilla.org, but someone should make it stop.
Vidar: Why is that prejudice? It’s incontrovertibly true that the recent Prevention of Terrorism Act was introduced in response to the threat of Islamic terrorism. We’ve had “general” terrorism from the IRA (Irish Republican Army) in Britain for thirty years, yet such a law has not been needed up to now.
It’s also true that the Islamic terrorist organisations wish to attack the UK, and have attempted to do so in the past. Do you have information that suggests they are about to stop doing so? If so, please share it.
The only part of my sentence which one could argue with would be the “absolutely inevitable” bit – and I’ve discussed that above.
The problem everywhere is that the public is not conscious of the terror surrounding them.
All they need is to have security that doesnt encroach their freedom.
Just because no terrorist acts didnt take place recently doesnt mean that it is over.
It is upon the Govt. to plan and protect its citizens and I am happy to see that Britian is doing that.
All those who try to compromise with terrorists have got it coming in the days to come.
Gerv, for the first time I completely agree with you :)
While there has been a lot of debate about the scope of the legislation and the fact that it now (sort of) has a sunset clause, the key point really is the burden of proof that is required for these orders.
Any evidence will not have to be given in court. Depending on circumstance a judge may be asked to review cases, but that is not guaranteed in the act.
But whoever is reviewing the case, be it politician or judge, they do not have to satisfy themselves that there have been planned crimes to the level usually expected in criminal cases ie. ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.
They do not even have to be satisfied that on the balance of probabilities that a person is guilty. The act means that UK citizens can be deprived of their liberty when the government thinks they are probably innocent, but has a ‘reasonable suspicion’ that they are guilty.
As anyone detained under the act has no right to hear any evidence that is presented they will not be able to defend themselves or present a case against this suspicion.
Gerv, it was exactly those words I reacted to; “absolutely inevitable”. Had you said something along the lines of “given the recent events in history, it’s not unlikely – and personally, I see it as quite inevitable – that some form of terrorist attack (most likely Islamic) will be exercised against the UK”, I wouldn’t have reacted at all.
I reacted to the absoluteness of your statement.
I did not object to the general idea that a nation responds to this “new” “international” “threat”, but that Planet Mozilla includes discussions around it. Having categorization, and then only showing the relevant categories (“Mozilla”) on planet.mozilla.org would be perfect.
Of course, when I think about it, I don’t recall reading any promises that planet.mozilla.org should only include Mozilla-relevant posts – that is just an assumption (and how I’d want it to be).
I don’t see where you addressed your absoluteness above – could you quote ?
Vidar: if you were reacting to the “absoluteness” of my statement, then your one-word summary – “Prejudice” – seems a very odd one. Asserting an absolute may be right or wrong, but i find it hard to see how it can be prejudiced.
I addressed why I think an Islamic terrorist attack is absolutely inevitable in comment #2.
Gerv, my one-word summary, “prejudice”, was directed at the absoluteness. IMO (and with my understanding of the word), it’s prejudice to the Islamic population to say “you will strike”, when it is not “absolutely inevitable”, as you put it.
Saying it is “absolutely inevitable that there will be an Islamic terrorist attack in the UK” when you could just as well not have included “Islamic” (in effect saying it is “absolutely inevitable that there will be a terrorist attack in the UK”) had served the same purpose, seems a bit odd. Especially when quoting the christian bible in the same paragraph.
I think “absolutely inevitable that there will be an Islamic terrorist attack in the UK” may perhaps be a *little* bit too strong. Perhaps “extremely likely” is more more appropriate. However I think we can say with some certainty that it is “absolutely inevitable that there will be an *attempt* at a terrorist attack in the UK”.
Picking on Gerv for using the phrase “Islamic terrorist attack” is unfair as Gerv is just simply mirroring the common language used in society to distinguish this particular kind of terrorism from the other kind of terrorism most of us in the UK are familiar with – that of Irish Repulican terrorism (which is now much less likely to occur). Simply using the phrase “terrorism” in the UK indistinguishes the kind of terrorism that Gerv was referring to from the other kinds we are more used to. The accusation of prejudice might carry more weight if it were referring to a citizen of country that has not experienced any other kind of terrorism in the recent past.
Which brings me to another point – should this kind of terrorism be labelled “Islamic” terrorism? The millions of peaceful Muslims in the world, particularly the UK, would argue that this terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. But the terrorists and their supporters (of which their are many) insist it has everything to do with Islam and the “oppression” of their Muslim brothers. It is unfortunate that the only factor distinguishing this kind of terrorism from other kinds of terrorism are these Islamic justifications. In the same way that not all Irish republicans are terrorists, not all followers of Islam are terrorists. But with Irish republican terrorism the only perpetrators were the IRA (and to a much lesser extent the INLA) so we could justifiable call it “IRA terrorism” and we would all know exactly what it meant. Shoud we call it “the threat from Al Quaeda”? But there is more than just Al Quaeda behind this threat. Should we call it “Arabic” or “Middle Eastern” terrorism? The threat originates from a much wider source than just the Middle East or Arabs (and that is prejudiced to Arabs and Middle Easterners most of whom are definitely not terrorists!). If we are to stop calling it “Islamic terrorism” we must find a more suitable appellation.
It may be unfair but, as I see it, there is no singular common factor other than its association with (a variant form of) Islam and until someone can come up with a better way of describing it in a form that is acceptable to news editors short of copy space that distinguishes it from other terrorist threats that is probably the way it will remain. And *NON-prejuduced* people (like Gerv) will probably still use the term “Islamic terrorism” and hope that cognizant people will be astute enough to realise it is not an attack on the Islam or the entire realm of Islamic adherants.
I didn’t realize that Gerv might put something (“IRA”) into just the term “terrorism.” But I do now.
There’s nothing wrong in associating a single act of terror with the fanatic part of the islamic population if they have claimed responsibility (or proven by court). The Islamic organization of Norway always address Islamic terrorists as “fanatics” (and in some rare and less ‘damaging’ cases, “traditionalists”), which is what differentiates them from regular Islamics. Just like Christians and other religions, which also have fanatics.
So I guess that’s the common factor.
“In the future, it is absolutely inevitable that there will be an Islamic terrorist attack in the UK.”
It is predujice. Is it okay when white catholic Irish blow up people but suddenly, there has to be a new law to prevent ‘Islamic’ terrorists, even though the only terrorism and bombs in our country so far has been from the IRA? Just because they are from the Middle East (like Jesus, incdentally) and not Christian?