| Tony Blair follows the beaten election path The British House of Commons yesterday held its final debate on the Terrorism Prevention Bill introduced by Tony Blair's government, a package of measures against terrorist suspects. The debate around the controversial bill has already caused a heated row in parliament and led to another split in the Labor Party camp two months before the general election. At the same time, the government ensured that the minimum time frame was allocated for consideration of the bill - only two series of debates within a week.
Prime Minister Tony Blair, speaking in parliament , explained the need for the new law very simply: “These people (terrorists - Ed. ) can kill thousands of our citizens. This is terrorism without borders." There have not yet been terrorist attacks in Britain comparable to the events in the USA or Madrid. But this does not mean that the threat of terrorism has passed the United Kingdom and there is no need to bring laws into line with the “rules of the game” imposed by terrorists.
The bill, introduced in Parliament by Home Secretary Charles Clarke, would formally replace the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act, which was in force until March 14 this year. The law, which was passed after the events of September 11, 2001, allowed for the indefinite detention of foreigners suspected of involvement in terrorism. However, the House of Lords considered this part of the law to violate human rights. Therefore, the existing law needed to be changed at a minimum.
Apparently, Blair's team decided to do what most governments have done in recent years on the eve of elections - to make the topic of terrorism the basis of the election campaign. As a result, a new bill appeared. It, in particular, provides that “control orders” prescribing the restriction of certain freedoms of a suspect can be presented to both a foreign citizen and a British citizen. The list of restrictive measures is quite wide - from a ban on using the telephone or the Internet, communication with strangers to house arrest as the most severe degree of imprisonment. Violation of the order will be considered a criminal offense.
The main and, perhaps, so far the only stumbling block on the way of the new bill to quick approval in parliament was the proposal of the Ministry of Internal Affairs to independently, bypassing the courts, make decisions on each case of detention. Minister Clarke motivated it this way: “The main task of the government and mine is to protect the security of the nation.” And this may sometimes require a speedy decision, which is not guaranteed by the judicial authority.
However, not everyone agreed with Labour's opinion, even in Blair's own party. In the second reading vote last week, 32 Labor MPs opposed, including seven former cabinet members.
“It is a dangerous precedent for democracy when the government can decide without a court order against whom measures will be taken to restrict individual freedom. We are afraid that almost anyone could be detained, and the restriction of freedom will not have a time frame,” said one of the bill’s opponents, Bob Wareing, who represents the Liverpool West Derby constituency in parliament.
The precedent, the basis of which is laid by the bill proposed by the Ministry of Internal Affairs, according to Waring, generally “violates human rights, and in particular contradicts the Habeas Corpus Act (in force since 1649, the “Act to ensure the freedom of the subject and to prevent imprisonment overseas”, guaranteeing the impossibility of detention or arrest without a court order). The lower house's cross-party human rights committee has also so far given a disappointing verdict on the bill - the law is unlikely to comply with the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights.
In such a situation, as many deputies believe, the bill will be subject to even harsher criticism when it is discussed in the House of Lords if amendments are not made to it. And Blair's cabinet had to make unplanned concessions. Speaking in parliament yesterday, the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs said that the government is ready to cede to judges the right to be the first to decide on the house arrest of a suspect. However, the cabinet will look to give police “new special powers” to detain a suspect while a judge decides on the matter. By the time the issue was signed, the debate was still ongoing.
However, there is little time to find a compromise - before the parliamentary elections, which could take place on May 5. Labor, for whom the issue of national security is one of the key issues in the election program, will apparently try to implement as many decisions as possible that guarantee the safety of citizens. How effectively these promises will be fulfilled, as well as who will ultimately implement them, will be shown by the election results.
So far, Labor's ratings are not at their best - a survey of future voters conducted by ICM shows that the ruling party is losing widespread support. If in December last year 40% of the population would have cast their votes for Labor (31% for the Tories and 21% for the Liberal Democrats), then by January there were 2% fewer people willing, and in February there were only 37% of them (the Conservatives by this time strengthened their position by 3%).
So a compromise on the anti-terrorism bill may now be the best option for Labor to maintain its position - both through consensus within the party itself and in competition with the opposition. Kirill ANUROV, RIA Novosti, London, for Vremya Novostei |
|
