Yet it takes just one event, one f--kwitted Prime Minister and a f--kwitt of a
Home Secretary to tear down years of legislative and judicial protection of the
people and introduce indefinite imprisonment, without trial, without a right to
appeal and without the need of publicly produced evidence of any kind.
Not since the days of the notorious "Star Chamber" in the 16th century has there
been such a threat to an individual's liberty.
What makes the current situation worse, is not that we are dealing with a
marauding bunch of vigilantes who believe they are right, and that justice is
on their side, but that indefinite imprisonment without trial has been
introduced, and wholly supported, by the UK government.
The Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act ( ATCSA ) 2001 was enacted as a
knee-jerk reaction to the September the 11th, terrorist attacks in New York.
Believing that Britain was immediately destined to become a target for
international terrorism, this hastily created, and wide-sweeping Act brushed
aside the European Human Rights Convention, as well as many of the UK's
local laws.
For foreign nationals who are suspected of being terrorists, have links with
terrorist groups, may know a terrorist, have seen a terrorist, know the name
Osama Bin Laden, or own a Vauxhall Chevette, their next stop after Heathrow's
immigration desk is likely to be some concrete prison without windows in the
middle of nowhere. Camp X-Ray, UK style.
There are at least seven people currently held in prison indefinitely as
suspected terrorists, but we know nothing about who they are, as this
information is considered highly sensitive.
All that can be said is that 'someone' has decided that they are a terrorist
threat, although there is no opportunity for them to defend the allegation
as the evidence does not need to be divulged, and, having not been committed
by judicial sentencing, there are no grounds for appeal.
It appears that at least one detainee does have links with terrorists; so far
that it is believed he has worked for a company of solicitors and has acted as a
translator in the trial of two alleged terrorists.
Another is believed to have links with a Muslim activist within the UK, although
there have been no charges laid against this alleged activist, and whilst it
is obviously quite right that someone who knows him should be locked up
indefinitely, the alleged terrorist is free to wander the country as he wishes.
A third detainee is, by all accounts, completely 'dolally'. Suffering from
severe mental problems, he is probably more a danger to himself than to
western civilisation, and would be far better off in a secure mental institution
then suffering permanent prison detention.
The reason these people have been banged-up, for what could turn out to be the
rest of their natural lives, is because the UK government accepts that it would
be wrong for them to be deported, as they do legitimately face dangers from
foreign sources. So, rather than send them back to their countries of origin,
where they could face torture and death, we lock them up without trial.
The common law right of Habeas Corpus, where no one can be detained without
criminal charge, has not been walked over; it's been p--sed on, dug up, and
concreted over.
So great is the revocation of such a right in a modern, free, democratic society
that it is not only a breach of everything most people see as a fundamental
right but a breach of European Human Rights legislation ( ECHR ) and other
international laws.
The only way the UK got its law in was by finding a loop-hole, which allowed a
derogation from the ECHR requirements, by defining the state of affairs
in the aftermath of September, 2001, with a declaration that there was, "A
public emergency affecting the life of the whole nation".
While Britain's public may well be concerned they have become a target of
Osama Bin Laden and his follows, as Bin Laden announced he would almost
certainly fight America and its a--e-licking toadies to the death, the
official government line is that there is no specific terrorist threat to the
UK.
Britain has lived within the shadow of terrorism and on the front-line for
many years now, and some woolly threat from some Muslim fanatic who lives in
a desert does not have people digging Anderson Shelters and borrowing copies
of Protect and Survive from the local library.
It is interesting that the anti-terrorism laws only affect foreign nationals,
and not British citizens. Presumably because it's all right to lock-up Johnny
Foreigner but not our own. The legislation is inherently racist, and would
rapidly be condemned if applied to citizens in the UK. Indeed, the UK has
frequently criticised foreign governments for using such legislation, and has
openly called for the overthrowing of such governments, the removal of heads of
state, and even declared war upon them.
Much like the Star Chamber of old, the indefinite imprisonment of the people
detained is being done very much in secret. There has been very little press
coverage on the matter, and the majority of the UK are probably unaware that
people are, as they were during the gulf War, being detained, not so much at
Her Majesty's Pleasure but on the whim of a Prime Minister and Home Secretary.
Lawyers acting on behalf of the detainees have, after nearly a year, managed to
secure a hearing as to whether such detentions are lawful or not, however, it
is not the High Court or House of Lords which will make this decision, but the
Special Immigration Appeals Commission.
This body, virtually unknown except to potential immigrants, has the right to
makes it decisions "in camera", without public scrutiny, and with very little
right of appeal.
The decision on whether or not indefinite detainment will continue is to be
made behind closed doors, without the public being able to hear the evidence
against those detained. Without the evidence being disclosed, it will be
almost impossible to mount a robust defence of any possible allegations, and
the whole proceedings are likely to be wrapped in the protection of secrecy
as the lawyers involved will be prevented from discussing the cases. Assuming
they are even allowed to hear the evidence, or even offer rebuttals.
This is a bizarre situation in a country which prides itself on having a safe
legal framework and being representative of the freedoms it claims it fights for
in foreign lands. There have been many grave judicial errors made in the past,
but very few drafted so deliberately.
It is not surprising that two former detainees elected to be voluntarily
deported, and are now living in France and Morocco respectively, where these
"international terrorists" are enjoying their freedom, without internment or
the threat of any legal proceedings at all hanging over them. The UK has been
the only European country which has felt it necessary to introduce such a tough
anti-terrorist regime.
Who the government considers to be terrorists is also worrying. Whilst no one
would have any qualms at labelling those who choose to wrap themselves in 'duck
tape' and semtex as terrorists, the official, legal, definition includes those
who use violent or non-violent means to disagree, or advocate disagreement,
with the government or attempt to alter government policies.
Taken literally, and that's how the government intended it,
anyone who does not slavishly accept government policy, and speaks out
against it is a terrorist. This would not only include both the pro and anti
hunting lobby, trying to influence the currently 'undecided' government stance,
organisers of petitions to prevent government road building programmes and
council house sell-offs, but also opposition MP's. Even Jeremy Paxman should be
aware that the, once innocuous, question, "But Minister, given public opinion;
don't you think the government should reconsider its position ?", makes him a
terrorist.
I have often found it hard to take pride in being British. Living in a country
that has crucified itself as a slave to capitalism and commercialism, has
reduced public services to a minimum and has created an underclass of third
world proportions is not something to be proud of.
Sacrificing years of protecting liberalism, freedom and rights for the
introduction of indefinite imprisonment, without trial, without evidence and
without appeal makes me wonder just what sort of country the UK has become.
Welcome to the UK. The land which would be happy to imprison Mahatma Ghandi
as an international terrorist.
