Out of control orders

Page 16
Q-News, Issue 362
April 2005

The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 grants the home secretary powers to circumvent standard legal procedures in its treatment of suspected terrorists. It is frightening, unprecedented and as Stop Political Terror’s Saghir Hussein tells Sonia Malik, its implementation threatens to victimise and criminalise Muslims across Britain. 


Why is this legislation dangerous?

This is the first instance during peacetime in Britain that the principles of English law have been changed so that the government can make decisions without going through the legal processes. This is dictatorship. Hazel Blears, in her comments about police actions, implied that the Muslim community was the primary target of this legislation. She was trying to appeal to voters who distrust Muslims.


What are the dangers associated with so much power being in the hands of the executive rather than the judiciary?

Unfettered power in the hands of individuals is always abused. Any Home Secretary who is under other electoral pressures is likely to try to find shortcuts to deal with long-term problems by locking up and restricting detainees to appease voters’ fears.


Doesn’t adjudication by the courts safeguard human rights to a greater extent?

Most courts merely rubberstamp the decisions of prosecutors. Few judges have the courage to challenge prosecuting authorities. As a general rule, whether dealing with terror suspects or otherwise, normal criminal procedures should be adhered to. This should be seen as a criminal problem as opposed to a political problem, which may othewise be hijacked by politicians.


Why do you think the government rushed this Act through Parliament?  

This is clearly the Government’s way of showing the tabloid readers, who make up the majority of the electorate, that they are tough on crime. Also, Blair has realised that he has made a big mistake in Iraq and is now using this legislation to show the British public that there is a genuine international threat in generalised terms. Of course, no details of such a threat have ever been released. Perhaps he hopes that a persistent, hyped-up threat will get him out of the quagmire he has gotten himself into.


What restrictions on personal liberty are imposed by the Act?

Enormous restrictions on movement and expression. House arrest and control orders are far more severe than even being in Woodhill or Belmarsh where you would at least have the community of fellow prisoners. Also, most of the individuals concerned live in poor accommodation. They inhabit small, damp council flats where they will experience hostility from quarters.
 

In which political party’s hands is the future of British Muslims safest?

The Liberal Democrats appear to have maintained a slightly better position on this matter. However, Muslims need to look at individual MPs and analyse what his or her position has been. The same culprits who voted for the war in Iraq are now attempting to create apartheid conditions in the UK. These people need to be ousted from government unceremoniously.


Speaking Out

Gareth Pierce, Lawyer to Guantanamo and Belmarsh Prisoners
“This is the worst and most frightening piece of legislation I have ever seen in this country. Of course, police and intelligence services have an endless appetite for power and will make a case for powers such as these. Britain is turning into a totalitarian state. So many people have had a gun put to their heads in order to push this legislation through. These are war time measures in times of peace. It takes away criminal investigation, due process and jury trial, all because of a big pretence. A big lie. Like the one which led to the 2001 Terrorism Act.

“It is laws like this which are a real threat to our nation, not terrorism. What is this all about? Answer: to affect the lives of all citizens at the whim of the Executive. You should be deeply frightened. On the basis of a ‘reasonable suspicion’ they can totally impose on your life and interfere with every aspect of it, whoever you are. They can stop you having friends, living in your house, owning harmless items.

“If you are the subject of a control order, you can be made to provide information to a specified person. You can be forced to talk about something you are suspected of. If you have nothing to relate you could go to prison for years. We have to have transparency, public trials, open evidence. Courts will merely ask “did the Home Secretary have a reasonable suspicion?” The Home Secretary will simply rely on confidential evidence from security services. How do you fight this? You can’t. The whole basis of this is to avoid courts and investigation.

“Every citizen has a right to know what is illegal and what is not, but you can’t make sense of this legislation because none of the terms are definable. It is a complete recipe for a dictatorship. Any MP who backs it doesn’t deserve your vote.  It would be treason.”