Terrorism v Human Rights. Where do you draw the line? Ken Livingston said of the London bombings "The people of London will get through this".

I am one of many people who believe that the threat of terrorism has been blown out of proportion by the government. Yes, I do accept that we face a threat, but is the threat really that great? The government does need to take steps to ensure that the British people are safe but does it really need to go to this extreme? The Government’s response to this threat has been to begin dismantling our democracy and implementing totalitarian measures. As Mr Blair has said “The rules of the game have changed”. This may be true to some extent but the threat of terrorism the country faces is certainly not large enough for the government to prevent people from expressing their opinions.

The “Prevention of Terrorism Act” will also insight racial hatred and many Muslims will suffer greatly from it. Extreme and dangerous political parties, such as the BNP, will no doubt have their membership increase rapidly in size as a result of this act. Has the Government thought about this? Probably not. One can’t help but think that the Government really hasn’t thought this through at all. There are so many holes in the bill that it is almost unbelievable that they are trying to get it through parliament. For example, do they really know how long 90 days is? It’s an absolutely massive amount of time, and is even longer if you are the one in prison for that long, especially if you are indeed innocent. Ok, so maybe the police do need more time then they are currently getting in order to gather evidence. But 90 days? Surely if our police were in any way effective, which I am sure they are, then surely if the person is guilty then it will take far less than 90 days in order to gather together evidence to prove their guilty.

Having a politician rather than a judge, depriving a British citizen of their liberty is a considerable threat to our liberty. Judges have their positions, as they are intelligent, respected individuals who are able to make reasoned and accurate decisions on cases based on their experience. Politicians, on the other hand, have not had experience in dealing with cases and dare I say it, some of them are not particularly intelligent or respected either. Charles Clarke or a respected judge who knows the law? I know who I would prefer to evaluate the case.

The reason that this bill has caused so much controversy amongst the general public and some MPs is the fact that the government seems to be going to extreme measures in order to fight terrorism. So extreme that they are willing to erode many of our civil liberties. While there is always a terrorist threat, it is certainly not great enough for us to destroy freedom of speech. Blair and his Government were spectacularly wrong on Iraq, and it looks like they will be on this. Terrorism v human rights, we would have to have daily terrorist attacks for this country to give up some of its civil liberties.