the war on terrorism is more than a war or public emergency threatening the life of the nation, and in many ways can be seen to be a clash of civilisations

Authors Avatar

Law 101 Coursework Three (Public Law)

        Samuel Huntington has been warning against a ‘clash of civilisations’ for more than a decade and now there seems to have been one, seen most influentially with the twin towers attacks and the London bombings.  There has been a knee jerk reaction to attacks such as these by western countries, for example the USA Patriot Act in America.  The Patriot Act remains highly disputed, but America was unified behind their president at the time of proposal and anything he could be seen to do to stop terrorism was embraced.  

        A similar view was taken in the UK and the Anti terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was enacted.  This act takes a great deal from civil liberties and freedoms, and allows powers contrary to article 5 of the Human Rights Act 1998.  A quote taken from the liberty website states that ‘Anti Terrorism measures have done little to ensure that Britain is safe and secure from terrorist attack, but much to infringe the civil liberties of those living in the UK’ and I think this view would be the consensus of the common man if he were told of the possibilities this act permits, for example Lord Hoffman tells us that any man could be detained “on the basis of some heated remarks overheard in a pub.”

        The Anti terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 allows the authorities to effect actions that are contrary to the United Kingdoms fundamental beliefs and values.  Although the UK does not have a written constitution, it is understood that liberty and freedom of expression are essential elements of a democratic people; the Anti terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 allows a suspected terrorist to be detained indefinitely or placed under house arrest without explaining why or allowing them to contact anyone.  It is important to note that the Anti terrorism, Crime and Security Act was held incompliant with the provisions of Articles 5 and 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 as it discriminated against non nationals.  The Home Secretary attacked the decision of the courts and the decision was overruled as it was decided the home secretary was in a better position to decide matters of national security.  These actions could undermine the independence of the judiciary.  Mr. John Wadham of Liberty stated that ‘the Government can only get away with it [The Anti terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001] because they're using it against foreigners’  I tend to agree with this measure especially when taking into consideration a statement made by CERD on 8 March 2002 ‘measures taken in the struggle against terrorism (should) not discriminate in purpose or effect on grounds of race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin'.  The measures taken by the UK clearly do, and the next point exemplifies this.

Join now!

        I bring to your attention the recent shooting of suspected terrorist Jean Charles de Menezes, a foreign man currently in the UK.  Lethal force was authorised against any suspected terrorists, which not only resulted in the death of a man innocent of these charges, is in direct conflict with Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights which seeks to protect the lives of everyone; violence should be a last resort, not an option quickly jumped to, and a policy which allows an innocent man to be shot in the head eight times is one which needs some rethinking. ...

This is a preview of the whole essay