Longrider

This afternoon, government is debating the anti-terror legislation that will empower the police to detain a terrorist suspect for 90 days without charge. That is, presuming the government gets its way.

There has, naturally, been much emotive debate on the subject. What would amuse me in other circumstances is the blatant opportunism and cynicism of the government. Yes, we had a terrorist incident that was successful in July - there was also a failed attempt. Naturally, people want to feel that government is doing the right thing in order to minimise the risk of further attempts. A reasonable person would support reasonable measures. It’s just that these measures are not reasonable.

“Whenever they are challenged about any aspect of their anti-terrorist legislation, ministers rattle out a prepared answer: “It’s what the police want.” No doubt they do: like all human beings, they want as much power as possible. But if we are simply to contract out public policy to the boys in blue, what is the point of having elections? A polity driven wholly by what the police want is a police state - literally.”

Yes, there is a risk of further terrorist attacks - there always has been. Yes, the modus operandus has changed - the IRA sought to survive their own bombs, Jihadists seek to die in glory. When the police or government call for more powers to detain without charge, they crank up the fear factor, citing “dirty bombs” or “biological or chemical” agents. Like the “Ricin” bomb plot of last year. Except, there was no plot, there was no bomb and there was no ricin; just one disaffected Algerian who killed a policeman while resisting arrest. Given the blatant lies and attempts to create a case against innocent people that was subsequently dismissed by jurors leaves me with no obvious choice but to believe that our freedoms and democracy are in more immediate danger from those charged with protecting them than they are from Jihadists. There is a risk indeed from terrorism. Let’s keep it in proportion, please.

Tony Blair wheeled out victims of the July bombings as justification for his continued war on our freedoms. To use people who have suffered in this way is morally reprehensible. Changes to the law must be conducted dispassionately, while considering the bigger picture and possible wider effects. Interestingly Jeremy Vine interviewed a victim on his lunchtime talk show today - she opposed the measures as being disproportionate and objected to them being rushed through in her name. This, from her blog:

“I am not going to be a human shield for this Government. Not in my name, I say, you do not act for me. If you want to be tough on terror, then why not be tough on the causes of terror? Why not address, for example, Iraq, why you invaded, the bitter fruits of your ill-thought out invasion?

And until you do, when I hear your voices dripping sympathy and concern, saying you do this ‘for the victims’, Tony, Charles, and the rest of you… I remain disgusted that you should use ordinary people - because that is all we are - bombed people - bloodied people - in this way. Who gave you the right to speak for me, Mr Blair, Mr Clarke? When did I give my blessing to fear-mongering?”

The government’s respondent was at pains to point out that this was not “in her name”. Interesting, that. When the victims obediently oblige as the gentleman did on the BBC Breakfast programme this morning and repeat the government line that miscarriages of justice are worth it for “public safety” then it’s okay - it is in their name (why else invite them round to No 10?). However if they dare to go off message, then it is not “in their name”. What utter contemptuous, conniving charlatans these people are.

Jeremy Vine ran a phone-in survey to see what support existed among his listeners. Unsurprisingly 82% voted in favour of the government’s proposals. Presumably that 82% did not consider that it might be them being detained for 90 days. So long as it is some Arab looking chap who must be guilty because the police know he’s guilty then habeas corpus can go hang.

Remind me, what was it my grandparents’ generation fought and died to preserve? Whatever it was, the mendacious mountebanks in Whitehall have undermined it to the point where I can no longer recognise it. They do so with the blessing of the mob who have short memories along with a gullible belief in government propaganda and the tabloid press.

They all believe that as it is for public safety, it must be a good thing. Just let’s not think too deeply about the wider consequences for our society. Public safety - mention that and you can get away with murder - Robespierre did.

Update: The government was defeated. This is a first for Blair. At last, the commons is showing signs of some common sense. Although there is still a detention period of 28 days, it is good news overall. Now we await the Lords to do their bit and trash this dreadful bill.

Perhaps the commons will defeat the ID cards bill when it goes back to the commons as it is likely to following amendments from the Lords.