Civil Rights in the UK

An observation on the current controversy on summary detentions under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act.

The government's use of internment without trial is something that has troubled me a lot. It's the kind of specious "greater good" argument that dictators such as Pinochet, or (dare I say) Saddam Hussein, used to validate their crimes against humanity. For such a thing to be happening in the UK is terrifying - thank god the Law Lords have not shied away from declaring these laws unsound.

The Home Secretary has suggested that the government will not react to the Law Lords' rulings, on the basis that the detainees are simply too dangerous. A stand-off is coming, which the government will probably win for now - however unrighteously. Theirs is the mantra: "We know more than you do, and if you knew what we knew you'd do the same."

If these people are a danger to society, there are very clear options: charge them as criminals or deport them. The current argument by the government against deportation is that legally these detainees cannot be deported to states where the regimes are known to have human rights abuses. Er... did I miss something? We won't deport the suspects to states where human rights abuses are known to be practised, but instead we'll just practise our own here in the UK by giving the detainees no indication of what it is they would be accused of. The absurdity is patent, and frightening. It's Kafka. Now, it has been pointed out that the issue with deportation is due to the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into our law. The startling aspect of this argument is that it treats the enshrinement of human rights into law as the root of the problem - as though it is a troublesome technical mistake we have assumed. The convention is there for precisely this purpose - to stop us taking the easy way out and forcing us to confront the principles we claim to uphold. We are failing this challenge with no small amount of ignominy.

To be honest, I do not think there is any obscurity in this case. The government can claim to protect us, but doing so by compromising on the basic rights we claim to defend is simply untenable. This may be a controversial thing to say, and I do not want to tempt fate, but I would rather live at risk than start down the path that leads to a society demonised by its own sense of fear. If we embark on this road, it will lead us to repression - and this is no exaggeration. The laws, presently restricted to non-UK nationals, will be extended to others - justification will be wrapped around actions with the barest tape. I am sure the Home Secretary believes that he would know the limits when he comes to them, but that is the kind of arrogance for which the government is rightly criticised. Corruptibility should never be underestimated, the way it can creep and slither and take hold, all the while deluding the authority into believing in its own righteousness.

Belmarsh Prison is being called UK's "Guantanamo" - I'd be intrigued to know what the American perspective on Guantanamo is, seeing as they've lived with this before. I accept that the psyche of the US will be different - we in the UK have not (yet) been hit by the devastation of the Al Qaeda terrorists, and who knows how we would react were it the case.

Ultimately, I accept that there are things we cannot know for security reasons, but the problem for me is that the government is prepared to accept that the measure of internment without trial is simply a regrettable necessity. Worse still, they seem to be comfortable with the "indefinite" terms of internment. There is insufficient urgency to extract us from the shame of this regrettable necessity.