"Terror Events Shouldn't Undermine Our Democratic Values"

Liberty is one of the UK's leading human rights and civil liberties organizations. It is a membership organization, and relies on the support of thousands of individuals who want to protect and promote civil liberties and human rights. The organization has been involved in a number of cases involving the British government's anti-terror legislation. Phillippa Hayward is the spokesperson for the Liberty civil rights organization in the UK.

How soon after Sept. 11, 2001 did civil liberties and human rights groups begin to see changes that concerned them in British society in regard to governmental control?

In November 2001 the British government passed the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill 2001 (ATCSA) which was pushed through as emergency legislation. Liberty believes that the existing British criminal law is well equipped to balance the competing interests of individual rights and public protection. No specific gaps in UK legislation were exposed by the events of 9/11. The new legislation was not the answer and would more than likely lead to alienation of minority communities, making the task of obtaining counter-terrorist intelligence more difficult. The UK also choose to derogate from existing human rights standards despite the fact that no other member states of the European Union chose to change their laws through derogation or any other mechanism. This is something that Liberty and other groups were conscious of prior to the events of 9/11 with much of the terrorist legislation developed during the Northern Ireland conflict.

The ATCSA introduced powers to detain a suspect indefinitely without charge for the first time since the end of the World War II. How did the government justify this and what were Liberty's reactions?

Such measures were to be used in relation both to the pre-deportation status of non-UK citizens whose presence in the UK is 'not conducive to the public good' as well as individuals who could not be deported due to fear of torture. Liberty was very concerned that the new powers of indefinite intention placed unending restrictions on liberty based on suspicion rather than proof; relied on secret intelligence; and curtailed the ability of the subject to test the case against him in any meaningful way.

The ATCSA made way for the Prevention of Terrorism Act in early 2005 after certain aspects of the 2001 act were deemed illegal. Was the Prevention of Terrorism Act a necessary step after the March 2004 attacks on Madrid or a way of avoiding judicial involvement?

The UK faces a serious threat from terrorism. However, both the unending nature of the threat and the counterproductive effects of visible injustice made any departure, or 'derogation,' from ancient and modern human rights standards in this way undesirable. Liberty believed that fundamental principles meant that the Prevention of Terrorism Act had to be opposed in its entirety. It allowed the government to place severe restrictions on the liberty of British citizens without proper process and was by no means a necessary response to the attack on Madrid.

The Prevention of Terrorism Act was due to be reviewed in February this year but that review was postponed until 2007. What did Liberty make of the home secretary's decision?

Liberty believes that the control order regime established in the PTA 2005 undermines fundamental democratic values: the rule of law, the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial. It was for these reasons that Liberty and others, including the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights vigorously opposed the Prevention of Terrorism Bill being rushed through parliament. We were understandably very disappointed that the home secretary decided to postpone the review of the act till 2007. Liberty continues to challenge many of the elements included within this act, in particular Control Orders. We were therefore very pleased with the judgment on April 12, 2006 when the High Court ruled Control Orders incompatible with human rights laws, in particular the right to a fair trial. The Home Office has since announced its intention to appeal this decision.

The government went even further with its legislation after the July 7, 2005 attack on London. What are the most worrying aspects of the Terrorism Act 2006 from a civil liberties and human rights viewpoint?

Liberty is concerned that a number of measures contained within the Terrorism Act 2006 would do little to make us safer but in fact threaten free speech and protections against unjustified detention. They will be counterproductive by undermining national unity in the face of the threat and criminalizing those who are not involved in terrorism. In particular, the new offense of encouragement of terrorism may criminalize loose talk and it is unclear how it is meant to be enforced. The police can now detain a terror suspect for up to 28 days before charge, which appears to be the longest pre-charge detention period in any Western European country. Finally, the Terrorism Act criminalizes membership or support of non-violent political parties, effectively driving dissenting opinions underground.

Do you think the government will continue to bring in even tougher laws in response to each new threat?

Recent history has seen the government respond to each new perceived terrorist threat with increasingly draconian new laws that seem to encroach ever further on our civil liberties and human rights. Nothing in the present government's actions seems to suggest a change in
direction. However, what is equally important to note is the level to which this government is being challenged in relation to these news laws. There have been a number of victories on the front of those who champion civil liberties and human rights, the recent judgment on control orders being one such example.

In Liberty's opinion, is the British government introducing restrictive legislation purely as a security measure in the face of an increased terrorist threat or does it have another agenda?

The government has a duty to protect its citizens. Liberty would like to be certain that this is done without irreversibly infringing human rights protections. We don't believe that there is another agenda.

There are some who make a connection between the timing of announcements of foiled terror plots, periods of criticism of the government and the presentation of new legislation. Is this worthy of discussion or just conspiracy theory?

An example of this type of speculation occurred in August 2006 when the Home Secretary John Reid made a speech calling for tougher anti-terror laws the day before a security operation was carried out against a suspected terror attack on transatlantic airliners. However, this operation had been in preparation for many months and therefore one can conclude that his policy recommendations were more likely in reaction to his knowledge of this suspected threat rather than anything more sinister.

In a recent poll, two thirds of Britons would give up some of their civil liberties for increased security. What is your opinion on that?

Liberty believes that the government is too willing to pit the argument for greater security against people's personal freedoms and civil liberties. While security is an issue of high importance to the whole population the present government legislation is by no means the only or even the most effective route of ensuring this security. The recent terrorist events should not be used to dismiss concerns about the continuation in force of legislation which undermines our democratic values. The past should, in fact, warn us of the dangerous counter-productivity of repression and injustice, of the unintended consequences of over-broad and repressive measures such as the control order regime.

Do you think that the government's anti-terror legislation is making Britain safer?

No. By compromising our fundamental rights and undermining key aspects of our judicial system the government allows its reaction to terrorism to pose a threat to the rule of law. New laws which undermine British concepts of justice such as the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial may alienate a large portion of our countries ethnic and religious minorities which is certainly counterproductive.