|
Britain removes more liberties in terror legislation Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-02-23T062538Z_01_HOL207286_RTRUKOC_0_SECURITY-BRITAIN.xmlhttp://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-02-23T062538Z_01_HOL207286_RTRUKOC_0_SECURITY-BRITAIN.xml
MPs to vote on anti-terror plan
Wed Feb 23, 2005 6:25 AM GMT
By Katherine Baldwin
LONDON (Reuters) - The government's proposed new anti-terrorism laws face further scrutiny today when MPs vote on plans that critics argue jeopardise key freedoms enshrined in Britain's centuries-old judicial system.
Home Secretary Charles Clarke told parliament on Tuesday that measures to put foreign and UK suspects under house arrest without trial will not be brought in immediately and judges will be given a say before suspects are detained at home.
But opposition to the plans remained strong, signalling a rough ride for Prime Minister Tony Blair just weeks before an expected May election.
The legislation has sparked debate over the balance between liberty and security at a time when the government says the threat from terrorism is "unprecedented" and warrants "extreme measures".
"Let no one be in any doubt that there are terrorists here and abroad who want to attack the UK and its interests," Clarke told parliament.
Under the plans, Clarke can put suspects who cannot be brought to trial under "control orders" that include electronic tagging, surveillance and, in extreme cases, house arrest.
The Labour Party's majority in the House of Commons, should ensure the bill's passage at a vote on Wednesday but vocal opposition from Labour members could prove embarrassing for Blair.
Labour MP Bob Marshall-Andrews called Blair's tough line "the greatest attack on the liberty of the British people for 300 years".
"BRITAIN'S GUANTANAMO"
Britain declared a state of emergency in 2001 after the September 11 attacks on the United States, saying the threat from al Qaeda justified suspending the right to a trial.
But in a ruling similar to one made by the U.S. Supreme Court, Britain's highest court said in December a policy of indefinitely jailing foreign suspects without trial violated basic rights.
That legislation expires on March 14, leading to a judicial hiatus if the new laws are not passed by then.
Seventeen foreigners have been held under the old law -- dubbed prisoners of "Britain's Guantanamo". Ten are still in jail. Without new laws or an extension of existing ones, they could walk free.
But critics say the proposals remove the presumption of innocence, undermine the right to a fair trial and allow politicians, not judges, to decide the fate of suspects.
"A person is innocent until proven guilty -- for 800 years that has been the fundamental part of British law ... This will lead to detention by suspicion rather than detention through conviction," said Shami Chakrabarti, director of civil rights group Liberty.
Blair's big challenge comes next week when the bill reaches the unelected House of Lords, where Labour lacks a majority.
In an apparent bid to mollify critics, Clarke said the current threat from the 10 detainees did not warrant house arrest orders -- orders that would require Britain to withdraw from a clause of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Any future decision to withdraw from the Convention must be taken by a vote in parliament and any ruling on house arrest must be approved by judges, he added.
But the watered-down plans failed to win over the Conservative Party, which is angry over the government's push to pass the legislation within days.
"Our civil liberties and system of justice are worth more than two days of hurried decisions," said Conservative MP David Davis.
|
|
