Human Rights and English Law - Without Security There Can Be No Liberty - Essay Example

114762 “Terrorism is a phenomenon steeped in varying and oftentimes conflicting political and ideological beliefs. Given that s have a fundamental right to self-defence and the right to self-determination, is terrorism legitimate if it is perpetrated in self-defence or in an attempt to achieve self-determination?” Susan Tiefenbrun, http://www.nsulaw.nova.edu/stuorgs/ILSAJournal/9-2/Tiefenbrun.pdf Terrorism, in any way, any form and for whatever reason cannot be justified because it takes away unconnected lives in the most cowardly way possible. It cannot be admired, condoned and glorified. Whatever could be the end, the means to achieve that end are despicable. Today, terrorism has become almost part of our lives. People are simultaneously worried about security and individual freedom. Politicians are worried about both too. We can see the contrast between the Labour Party Manifesto and the aftermath: “Citizens should have statutory rights to enforce their human rights in the UK courts. We will by statute incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law to bring these rights home and allow our people access to them in their national courts. The incorporation of the European Convention will establish a floor, not a ceiling, for human rights. [emphasis added] : 1997 Labour Party’s General Election Manifesto. “Should legal obstacles arise we will legislate further, including, if necessary, amending the Human Rights Act in respect of the interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights. Prime Minister Tony Blair, 5 August 2005” http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGEUR450042006?open&of=ENG-GBR Erosion of Human Rights started with the fight against terrorism. There is also an added fear that erosion of human rights could be counter productive. People detained under harsh conditions, on the basis of secret accusations, which they could not refute, harassed or tortured could create a backlash in the society. But can the country risk its security in the name of freedom? If so, how far can it go without endangering itself? How much protection can security agencies offer without additional powers and how safe are these draconian powers? Which is more important, liberty or security of the nation? Since September 11th, 2001, Government passed many laws, even though there were toughest laws in place already. Crime and Disorder Act of 1998, Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act, 1999, Regulation Investigatory power Act, 2000, Terrorism Act 2000, Anti Terrorism, Crime and Security Act, 2001, Criminal Justice and Police Act, 2001, Proceeds of Crime Act, 2002, Criminal Justice Act, 2003, Asylum and Immigration Act, 2004, and Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2005 are the various laws made for the security of citizens and properties of United Kingdom and there is no doubt that they infringe on the personal liberty of citizens. “We are particularly concerned about threats to free speech and the extension of pre charge detention. These measures have the potential to undermine centuries of democratic tradition and are likely to be disastrously counter-productive” http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/issues/terrorism.shtml Human liberties that have come from the natural rights of the man, today are on the brink of getting extinguished, Human Rights organisations say. People have more claims on those laws because they have come to them as a gift from nature. “Practical natural rights theories are thus founded in a mixture of moral and political analysis, social psychology and practical reason. Natural rights do not float in a Platonic heaven of ideal, eternal concepts, despite of assumption of many of their critics,” (Feldman, 2002, p.24). The recent terrorism acts have posed multi-dimensional threats for all Governments that are preoccupied by anti-terrorism activities. European Union is taking stringent measures called ‘Framework Decisions’ with procedures like sanctions, extradition, information exchange, penalties and arrests. Article 3 lays down the rules: : “the following offences… which are intentionally committed by an individual or a group against one or more countries, their institutions or people with the aim of intimidating them and seriously altering or destroying the political, economic or social structures of those countries will be punishable as terrorist offences." http://www.una-uk.org/archive/terrorism/terrorismhr.html National security, individual rights, public protection all clash with one another in the recent acts. Act of 2005 has replaced the Part 4 of Anti-terrorism Act of 2001 and these apply to both domestic and international terrorists. Biometric Identity cards too have generated unending controversy. Prime Minister and Home Minister both said that the country lost an opportunity of containing terrorism due to the defeat of the bill. But the Government is worried about extremism attaining upper hand. Prime Minister is pursuing a hard line trying to make stricter laws against terrorism. “Tony Blair recently warned judges he will renounce part of the European Convention on Human Rights and have "a lot of battles" with courts if they block the deportation of extremists” http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article305157.ece Government is cutting off terrorist funding, sharing information with all government agencies and departments, changing immigration procedures, maintaining nuclear and aviation safety, empowering relevant forces, and countering bribery and corruption. People, highly conscious of civil rights say that anti terrorism acts are stifling civil liberties. There is no doubt that national security and civil liberty have to be balanced. At the same time, it must be realized that terrorists are attaining sophistication and flawless planning. Their destruction machinery had not been limited to hand grenades or home made bombs any more. Instead, they had expanded their sphere into biological, nuclear and even chemical warfare and many such attacks had shown their complete expertise. “Of these, one of the most unnerving was the March 1995 nerve-gas attack on the Tokyo subway by the Japanese cult Aum Shinrikyo, killing twelve but also affecting thousands of others,” Freedman (p.1). Hence, difficult laws are necessary to face this unprecedented situation. “On the other hand, if a government fails to protect its citizens, those citizens may take the law into their own hands by forming, first, vigilante groups and then, as law and order breaks down, their own private armies. This was the road to Nazism,” Clutterbuck (1975, p.149). So, it is a war between the Acts and Human Rights and Civil Liberties facing each other and the terrorists attacking both from every angle. It is an unfortunate situation that terrorism has come to stay. Till now, there is no indication that terrorists could be slowing down. “Their creed is negative – to destroy society as it is, but without having any clear idea of what they want to substitute in its place. Violence and disruption, in themselves, provide their main satisfaction. Unlike the nationalist movements, therefore, they are unlikely to cure themselves or to be cured by a discovery that logic shows their activities to be counter-productive,” Clutterbuck (1975, p.146). Experts are concerned that natural rights are slowly changing into claim and demand rights at the mercy of the Government. Detaining foreign terrorist suspects without trail indefinitely has been ruled illegal, by United Kingdom’s highest court, the House of Lords. They gave the judgement that it is not compatible with the European Human Rights Convention. Amnesty International has claimed that Britain, in the name of anti-terrorism, has committed grievous human rights abuses, though the Lord Chancellor said ‘it was unfair to criticise the government’s commitment to human rights’. Amnesty’s report criticises the indefinite detention of foreign terrorism suspects that has been abandoned now, in favour of house arrests. Any kind of physical torture cannot be carried out on the detainees as a national rule. “Physical torture in the UK is actionable in tort as a battery. The same is probably true of mental torture if it causes psychiatric harm, bearing in mind that the psychiatric as well as physical injuries have been held to constitute the criminal offence of assault occasioning actual grievous bodily harm,1” (Feldman, p.248). Tony Brair’s plans for tough anti-terror legislation had been defeated and criticised by people, Amnesty International, cultural and religious groups and his own backbenchers. Courts had been holding up the personal liberty in spite of the many Acts. “Although subject to Parliament, the courts have always played an important role in the protection of civil liberties by the interpretation of statutes, the review of administrative action and the development of the common law,” (Bailey, 2001, p.4). It is not wrong if people are clamouring for the freedom that had been held safely by common people and they are worried that institutions that are created to uphold those common liberties could also become vengeful armed with more powers. “Many organizations and state bodies serve to protect civil liberties and also have the potential to infringe them. The most conspicuous group is the police,” (Bailey, 2001, p.83). The atmosphere of distrust, suspicion and conflict had been continuing at least for the five years now. Remedies for the unlawful detention had been suspended creating more uncertainty and ambiguity. “Suspending the availability of the remedy for unlawful detention had only the limited effect of enabling the authorities to make arrests, and hold individuals in custody, without bringing them to trial; incidentally this made it easier to ill treat them,” (Simpson, 2001, p.57). Government is trying to convince people on the acute urgency of national security and connected laws. “Mr Clarke will call for a national debate on the future of the counter-terror laws, due to laps next year. He has made it clear he will not revoke detention certificates or release the detainees until Parliament agrees on the future of the laws” http://www.theage.com.au/news/War-on-Terror/UK-to-review-terrorism-laws/2005/01/26/1106415662318.html. There is nothing more important than national security at present and during emergencies and wars, civil liberties do get encroached. Having said that it is difficult to completely forget the civil liberties, as though they never existed. “If, on the other hand, a new constitutional debate galvanizes the British citizenry into a new concern for its old rights, and that concern is recognized and symbolized in a new constitutional charter, Britain will have announced that its culture of liberty is too valuable to trade for convenience or economy or repose. It will have taken a crucial step back towards its old place at the frontiers of personal freedom,” (Dworkin, 1996, p.372). BIBLIOGRAPHY: 1. Bailey, S.H., Harris, D.J. and Ormerod, D.C. (2001), Civil Liberties Cases and Materials, 5th edn., Butterworths Lexis Nexus, London. 2. Clutterbuck, R.L. (1978), Britain in Agony, Faber, London. 3. Dworkin, R. (1986), Law’s Empire, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, US. 4. Dworking, R. (1996), freedom’s Law, Oxford University Press. 5. Feldman, D. (2002), Civil Liberties and Human Rights in England and Wales, 2nd edn., Oxford University Press. 6. Simpson, A.W.B. (2001), Human Rights and the End of Empire, Oxford University Press. ONLINE SOURCES: 1. http://www.nsulaw.nova.edu/stuorgs/ILSAJournal/9-2/Tiefenbrun.pdf 2. http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGEUR450042006?open&of=ENG-GBR 3. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4742040.stm 4. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4100481.stm 5. http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/issues/terrorism.shtml 6. http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200510/s1489719.htm 7. http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article324062.ece (online edition: The Independent) 8. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/security/ 9. http://www.theage.com.au/news/War-on-Terror/UK-to-review-terrorism-laws/2005/01/26/1106415662318.html 10. http://www.statewatch.org/docbin/uklaws.htm Read More