War on terror used as pretext for tyrannical erosion of fundamental freedoms in the UK
September 29, 2004 Edition -1
Tareq Ali
We HAVE seen over the last few years, and indeed stretching back more than 30 years, a policy of the erosion of so-called democracy in the United Kingdom as a reaction to alleged, and of late rarely real, terrorist activity on the mainland.
The responses by the British government to Irish terror tactics, at face value in support of the liberation of Ireland, were legislative measures - such as the Prevention of Terrorism Act of 1973. A review of these and later legislative measures reveals the extent to which these measures have become accepted and integrated into the fabric of British society, its institutions and its outlook.
The current government's response to the attacks on the World Trade Centre has been yet another serious attack on civil liberties and a significant accumulation of power by the executive. In the long run, the accumulation of power by the state over the individual is as serious a threat, if not greater, than the terrorist activity the response is purported to protect the individual from.
Much of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act of 2001, the government's main legislative response, went far beyond a genuine attempt to deal with terrorism. It is instead the speeding-up of a long-running trend whereby the fundamental freedoms and protections from arbitrary state power in Britain are being progressively dismantled.
From the 1980s onwards, legislation has been brought into force which increases state power over the individual and communities. One can see a pattern emerging which attacks the right to silence, the right to a fair trial, freedom of association, freedom of movement, freedom of speech, the right to protest and the presumption of innocence.
The Anti-Terror, Crime and Security Act of 2001 has been described as a ragbag of diverse provisions, some of which are completely unrelated to terrorism, and was brought into force in the wake of and riding on the publicity of the Twin Towers affair. There is no need to produce any evidence of a crime having been committed, nor do the police require judicial authority. The information they are allowed to access includes financial and medical records.
It has been argued that there are safeguards in that some of these measures are time limited, but it is worth remembering there is explicit provision for renewing the powers and the Prevention of Terrorism Act originally introduced in 1973 was supposed to be temporary, but was renewed each year until it was entrenched in permanent legislation in the form of the Terrorism Act of 2000.
In addition to these measures, existing provisions have been extended which go to the heart of all financial transactions in the UK. Most notably the money laundering legislation has been extended and strengthened. Originally this legislation was introduced to prevent the movement of money from the proceeds of drugs and terrorism. This has been extended to include the proceeds of all crime.
The recent extension and inclusion of wide-ranging and draconian penalties brought into the civic domain affect virtually every financial transaction in a commercial environment. There is another aspect which supports, sustains and promulgates the ethos behind this legislation which is in the form of government statements and media coverage.
The reality of the situation into which statements are made, and the environment into which recent legislation has been enacted, is that there has never been one proven act of terror by a Muslim in the UK. Yet the application of the anti-terror legislation and the media coverage has been disproportionately against Muslims.
Most of those convicted under these laws are non-Muslim even though most of those arrested have been Muslim. According to the Home Office's own figures, 609 arrests of alleged terror suspects have been made in the UK over the last three years.
Of these, up until June 30, there have been only 15 convictions. The majority of those arrested have been quietly released without charge i
n spite of the high profile, by the police and the media, given to the raids when carried out.
Only three of the 15 people convicted under anti-terror laws in the past three years are known to be Muslim - and two of these have been granted leave to appeal against their convictions. This is a 0.5% conviction rate.
Let us now look for a moment at one particular aspect of foreign policy as practised by the British government. The response of the British government to the actions of the US administration against British citizens in Guantanamo Bay has revealed the full extent of the abdication of any claim to the rule of law. When a government abandons its citizens to torture and incarceration without trial, what legitimacy can they claim to rule?
The British government is reluctant to accuse the American government of breaking the law in its detention of aliens because it is doing the same thing in the UK. The British government holds aliens, under the Anti-terror, Crime and Security Act of 2001, without charge, indefinitely, in prisons such as Belmarsh and Woodhill, on British soil. They have been described as Britain's Guantanamo.
So much has been aired by the government and through the media, largely based on lies, half truths and distortions, that anti-terror has become as much part of the civic principle as "democratic values and ideals", the sanctity of human life, individual freedom and integrity, equal values of all people and respect for the weak and vulnerable - yet the contradictions are so obvious.
To stand against the so-called anti-terror measures now means to stand against legislative measures that in reality are instruments of oppression and control as well as to stand against government and media opinion.
Its tyranny is subtle, yet obvious, insidious but open to view, and determines and shapes the lives of everyone. This tyranny has been woven into every facet of human activity and thought under the beguiling mesmeric cover of democracy, legal and juridical pronouncements, freedom and security.
