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. People in London will now not only be scared of terrorist actions, but of the police who now have the permission and means to shoot them if they are suspected as terrorists.
The principle of habeas corpus is also under threat by The Anti terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. Although the home office denies it, the Act clearly conflicts with this treasured part of English law. Although we are presented with the challenge of fighting those who have no respect for our values, we must remain true to those values otherwise there will be nothing left to protect.
Lord Hoffman declares in A and Others (2004) that ‘it is for Parliament to decide whether to give the terrorists such a victory’, and by giving powers such as these given under the Anti terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 parliament are doing this. Instead of trying to find the reasons behind terrorism, the government is trying its hardest to stop it. The best method of preventing terrorism would be to first understand why we are the victims of terrorism. Could the source of terrorist attacks be the unfounded, highly controversial war in Iraq?
The UK had to derogate in relation to the Anti terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. The general rule is that where a State decides there is a need for derogation, the courts must not only be convinced of the need for derogation, but also that the derogation was proportionate to the need by not eliminating more individual rights than necessary. In removing the right to freedom by increasing pre trial detention indefinitely it could be said that parliament have acted incompatibly with Human Rights Act 1998 and have reacted too strongly to the terrorist actions, removing more rights than necessary.
AV Dicey pronounces that ‘individual rights are the basis not the result of the law of the constitution’ Parliament must deem it necessary to restrict the rights of the few people that are subject to these new powers to protect the rights of the many; specifically, the right to live, and live in peace. I am not saying that we should not question the decisions of parliament as unequivocal and absolute law, however the rights of the citizens of the UK does seem to be what parliament is trying to protect, and we cannot fault them for that. What we can fault them for however, is the rushed implementation of laws which undermine our democratic state by allowing such harsh treatment of suspected terrorists. Although I agree that potential threats should be eliminated, there must be a more civilised way of doing this. At present suspects are not only not told the reason they are being detained, their whole life is under threat; their bank account, job, family and even their home is controlled by the authorities. This does not seem like the actions of a democratic, free society which has a legal system envied by countries worldwide, it sounds more like a dictatorship telling us that ‘they know best’. The current legal system has worked without infringing the rights of its citizens; with the Human Rights Act 1998 providing safeguards for individual liberties and the recent eruption of equality within the UK, why the sudden change in posture?
In Europe it has been generally recognised that terrorism cannot be conquered by brute force. An increase in development aid and economic co-operation, and making implementing human rights a high priority was the common European reaction to September 11th. The UK however decided to follow its American Allies by using a more repressive strategy. Instead of working with the current system in Iraq they invaded the country to ‘convert’ it to democracy.
A quote taken from a journal article shows the greater understanding that Europe has compared to its American counterparts: ‘Preventing and combating terrorism is one side of the coin, eliminating its sources and root causes the other.’
A healthier relationship should be developed with countries that are struggling. The journal article I referred to a moment ago points out the major causes of terrorism: ‘Lack of proper economic development, unequal distribution of material resources, failing states, the lack of respect for human rights and equal opportunities’ and I believe that if a healthier relationship was made with countries such as these, that the problems could be prevented though healing the country. Instead of suppressing their views by force, help them to be less radical in their actions by making there no reason for them to be radical. If a country is at peace with itself, it is more likely that it will be at peace with other countries instead of, as the question states, creating a ‘clash of civilisations’.
In the context of The Human Rights Act, I believe the Secretary-General of the United Nations explains it correctly; 'we cannot achieve security by sacrificing human rights. To try and do so would hand the terrorists a victory beyond their dreams.' The UK, by derogating from the Human Rights Act 1998 has done just this; given the terrorists a small victory. To work with the countries the terrorists originate from and work toward making the world a better place may also give them a victory, but of a different kind. Terrorism aims to disrupt to prove a political or ideological point, but if that point were to become obsolete, the terrorist organisation would also become obsolete, and the occurrence of countries harbouring terrorists would reduce greatly.
In conclusion, I think Lord Hoffman’s view, that 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. In fighting this ‘war’ on terror we must however be sure not to disrupt our own beliefs and system of values, and act as humanitarian as possible. If we work together with the countries, Europe as a whole can come through this ‘war’ relatively unscathed. We must remember to tone down the more radical action being taken recently however, as incidents like the Charles de Menezes shooting show.
Word Count: 1754
Bibliography
-
Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington’s view obtained from the observer online at http://observer.guardian.co.uk/islam/story/0,1442,577982,00.html
- http://action.aclu.org/reformthepatriotact
- A and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2004) UKHL 56 at para 96
- The Anti-Terrorism, Crime And Security Bill Journal Article by Dr Alastair N Brown
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4329839.stm - BBC news article on habeas corpus rights.
- Slapper & Kelly, The English Legal System, Seventh Edition.
A political scientist; http://observer.guardian.co.uk/islam/story/0,1442,577982,00.html
http://action.aclu.org/reformthepatriotact/ is a website dedicated to stopping the patriot act becoming permanent as it is set to expire
http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/issues/terrorism.shtml
Lord Hoffman, in A and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56 at para 96.
A v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2002)
The Anti-Terrorism, Crime And Security Bill Journal Article by Dr Alastair N Brown
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
"You may have/hold the body to be subjected to (examination)" - an order to bring a case to court to determine whether or not he/she is being imprisoned lawfully.
"We are not removing habeas corpus rights. Everyone has a right to habeas corpus and that will remain the case."; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4329839.stm
Page 394 of Slapper and Kelly, The English Legal system
European Journal Of International Law, April 2003; Human Substantive And Institutional Implications Of The War Against Terrorism, by Sabine von Schorlemer